Four hundred years after the final word of revelation under the old covenant, the silence was broken when the Angel Gabriel spoke to Zacharias about the birth of his son, John (Luke 1.11-19). Gabriel put the birth of John in the context of Malachi 4: 5, 6 giving clear indication that the promises and prophecies of the old covenant were about to be fulfilled so that God would not “strike the earth with a curse.” This renewed revelation came to Mary, Joseph, and Elizabeth also. They were confronted with the initiation of coming events that would bring to completion God’s purpose of redemption. God would penetrate these events before, during, and after with revelation to explain their meaning, that “we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God” (1 Corinthians 2:12).
Within this flurry of renewed revelation, we find Simeon, a man “just and devout” as a channel of revelation (Luke 2:25). Simeon sought to live with equity according to the laws governing human relations in the law of Moses, wanting his worship to be sincere, fully consistent with a contrite heart. He grasped the spirituality of both tables of the law and lived transparently before God and man. He received the promises of God and held them with a heart of devotion. “The Holy Spirit was upon him” indicates that Simeon had revelatory experiences that had been confirmed to him in some undeniable way. He had been given such specific revelation that he knew that he would see the Lord’s anointed one, the very Christ. From the speech that he gives (Luke 2:28-35), the revelation to Simeon had been of a broad scope. This revelatory activity of the Holy Spirit was the first indication that the final prophecy of the Old Covenant was about to be fulfilled. The silence of God was broken and he was about to speak to us through the Son (Hebrews 1:1).
Apparently, Simeon understood clearly that the Holy Spirit prompted him to go to the temple with the expectation that the promise made to him personally was about to be fulfilled. Immediately upon seeing Joseph and Mary bring Jesus into the temple, he took the child from their arms and magnified the greatness of God. He spoke by the Spirit giving notice of how this child would affect the world.
Closest to home, as a personal note he said the striking words, “Now, Lord, you are releasing your bond-servant to depart in peace, according to your word.” Since this promise of seeing the Lord’s Christ had been fulfilled, Simeon could die in peace. He had no question of the certainty of this but believed the direct revelation that this babe was the child of promise. Condensing all the promises of deliverance for the people of God into the person and future work of the babe he now held and gazed upon, Simeon said, “Mine eyes have seen your salvation.” In this child, “Righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psalm 85:10).
Simeon saw this salvation as prepared in the presence of all peoples. He had learned from Scripture that when the great work of restoration takes place, it is not a restoration of national glory to Israel but a restoration of sinners to God. All peoples are fallen in Adam; but through the glory of Israel, that is, the line of David (Psalm 89:19-29), people from all nations will experience this deliverance from evil. Nevertheless, thechile also constituted “The glory of your people Israel.” It is for this very reason that Israel existed as the people of God, that the Savior would come through their nation. The true glory of Israel was this: “from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
To Simeon was revealed that surrounding this child all would see the “rise and fall of many in Israel.” John later testified, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came to his own and his own received him not, but to as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, to those who believe in his name” (John 1:10-12).
The child also was “For a sign to be opposed.” The slaughter of the infants, the opposition of his home town to his preaching, and the cry of the crowds, “We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15) substantiated this oracle.
Simeon spoke a word of revelation to Mary. The mother of this new born heard Simeon’s prophecy, “A sword will pierce even your own soul.” She would stand beneath the cross as this firstborn child suffered the unthinkable cruelty of a Roman cross. She would mourn for him as he cared tenderly for her (John 19:25-27).
Not her thoughts alone, however, would be revealed, but the true character of the religious leaders of Israel would be laid bare by this Messiah. He caused great controversy by his words and his works so that when he was opposed for his purity and his truth, the hearts of many were revealed. Jesus revealed the unbelief of the religious leaders among Israel: “You know neither me nor my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. . . .If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:19, 42-44). Also to the apostles Jesus granted the Spirit for this discernment of heart on certain occasions: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:3); To Simon Magus Peter spoke, “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:21); “Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him [Elymas] and said, ‘O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?’” (Acts 13:9, 10). Jesus confirmed this in his own warnings to his disciples when he said, “There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known” (Luke 12:2).
Those gifts of revelation were given specifically for the messianic period and the initial establishing of the church, the community of the new covenant, the pillar and foundation of the truth, during the time that the writing of Scripture was taking place. There was an overlap in special ministries of the Spirit and written instruction from the apostles (1 Timothy 3:14, 15; 1 John 2:20-22; 26-27). This period of special revelation has been fulfilled and now we rely on Scripture alone under the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-21).
Series Navigation

Summarized by Tom J. Nettles

In his opening section Edwards demonstrates that true virtue consists most essentially in benevolence to being in general. Though this could include all things that have existence, Edwards is concerned mainly with rational being. Virtue concerns the “beauty of the qualities and exercises of the heart, or those actions which proceed from them.” Simple virtue does not ask for gratification from the object seen but arises from within as an absolute will for good toward all other beings, being in general. 

The second object of a “virtuous propensity of heart” is benevolent being, that is, another being which shares the same benevolence toward being in general. Such an object as has benevolence towa4rd being in general is pleasing for one knows that benevolence toward being in general is multiplied by another being that manifests that virtue. This necessarily arises from pure benevolence to being in general and is the primary constituent of true moral or spiritual beauty. Those flowings of benevolence toward benevolent being imply a multiplication of consent and union with being in general. 

This spiritual beauty is the primary ground, the objective foundation, of complacence, love to a being for its pleasing impact on oneself, that is, when the pleasure is first grounded in benevolence. Such a benevolent being is amiable and pleasing in and of itself and is attractive to another benevolent being. The degree of amiableness is compounded by quantity of being and benevolence. None can relish this beauty that does not have that temper himself.

The second section demonstrates that true virtue consists, therefore, of love to God with all one’s being. If virtue is benevolence toward being in general, and finds expansion in benevolence toward benevolent being, and then finds complacence as necessarily manifest toward a benevolent being, then God—the triune God is infinitely the appropriate object of both benevolence and complacence. Our benevolence cannot add to his happiness, but we can rejoice in his immutable and infinite happiness. We may promote his glory. If God—infinite, eternal and unchangeable—is to be considered at all in one’s understanding of virtue, then he must be the chief consideration.

Benevolence directed primarily toward any other being is nothing short of self-love, for, in spite of all appearances to the contrary in some expansive manifestations of benevolence, it establishes a private sphere as its ultimate good. It contradicts, therefore, true benevolence and is itself an opposition to true virtue. God has the most of being and manifests the greatest of benevolence toward being in general. In fact, he alone as self-existent has all being in himself either as his proper personal existence or as a manifestation of his volitional power in creation and sustenance.

God’s virtue consists primarily of Love to Himself, because mutual love and friendship subsists eternally and necessarily between the several persons in the Godhead. All other beings are loved in a way subordinate to and derived from love to himself. Because God is the absolute epitome of virtue, and that virtue consists of love to himself in his infinite perfections, even so, virtuous love of one created thing to another consists in seeking the proper end of everything, that is, the manifestation of the glory of God. Any ethical system, or philosophy of virtue, that does not submit to the glory of God as its chief end is a defective system. 

In his third section, Edwards discussed secondary and inferior kinds of beauty. This absolute reality of true virtue underlies all that is truly pleasing within the created order in material things, relationships, and attempts at spirituality. All of these secondary beauties, apart from true virtue, are erroneously confounded with real virtue. This secondary beauty consists in a mutual consent and agreement of different things, in form, manner, quantity, and visible end or design. Material things that possess symmetry, proportion, harmony, regularity, uniformity are pleasing both to eyes and minds. Relationships and attitudes that reflect these qualities, at least as we perceive them, appear beautiful as an analogy of “benevolent agreement of heart.” The beauty of true virtue is “cordial,” but the appeal of secondary beauty is “natural.”

Secondary beauty appeals to men as a law of nature, as an instinct, not that wherein the beauty fundamentally lies. Music can be appealing simply as a reflex of the human mind; one does not necessarily grasp the physics of music in its proportion of sound waves, the physical reasons behind dissonance and harmony and why resolution can be satisfying and failure of resolution agitating. This secondary beauty is enjoyed more in greater and more important things than in lesser and trivial things, particularly when one sees “some relation or connexion of the things thus agreeing one with another.” Thus, immaterial things such as social order, wisdom, and justice are approved of and largely sought to maximize personal benefit in the larger picture. This approval of such secondary beauty, considered simply and by itself, has nothing of the nature of true virtue.

Self-love, therefore, can give rise to things that mimic true virtue. It can generate love to others or lead one to despise others. Self-love may be seen as a person’s “love of his own happiness.” Without investigating why some things become his happiness, love to oneself involves promotion of his private interest. A person loves to be loved and hates to be hated. Sometimes the disapproval of men is hated more than death itself. What would we feel if “universally hated and despised.” Thus we may find self-love as a kind of respect toward and gratitude to those who comply with the inclinations of our self-love.  Both anger at evil and gratitude for good can manifest a species of self-love. Love for near relations concerns their esteem of us and our vested interest in them. Those we love or judge from afar can arise from approval or disapproval of their characters to which our self-love inclines us. Benevolence may be approved from self-love and malevolence disliked. Virtues and vices may find approval or disapproval from self-love. Self-love may generate very wide spheres of benevolence that still are private spheres for they fall short of benevolence to being in general and consequent complacence in the glory and character of God.

Manifestations of conscience and a moral sense, apart from true virtue, still may function out of a variety of manifestations of self-love. Edwards notes, “A disposition in man to be uneasy in a consciousness or being inconsistent with himself, and as it were against himself in his own actions” may cause an uneasy conscience. Conscience may approve or disapprove of actions based on how we would feel if such and such things were done to us.  To dislike, or like, a thing because it is either a contradiction or a union with ourselves is quite another thing than to like or dislike because we are “united with being in general.” Appearance of virtue in expanded private spheres can develop quite apart from primary beauty of true virtue and the consequent odiousness of sin. Such social and personal virtue may express a strictly natural principle instead of a divine principle.

The functioning of natural conscience provides a strong example in two areas of apparent virtue that is not of the nature of true virtue. One, the approval or disapproval of moral action prompted by uneasiness with ourselves when we see that we expect less selfishness of others than we expect of ourselves. Edwards call this that “disposition to approve or disapprove the moral treatment which passes between us and others, from a determination of the mind to be easy or uneasy, in a consciousness of our being consistent or inconsistent with ourselves.” As Paul says in effect in Romans 2:1, “The thing wherein we condemn another, we condemn ourselves” A second function of natural conscience that can mimic true virtue is the approval of true virtue in others. Seeing the character generated by “benevolence toward being in general” and God in particular might win our approval even when we do not “taste its primary and essential beauty.” God’s righteous judgment that stops every mouth (Romans 2:5; 3:19), however, will not be relativized in such a way but will accept only that which is true virtue and thus absolute righteousness.

There are some implanted instincts of nature that resemble true virtue. Natural affection (e.g self-sacrificial love for one’s children) and pity, a sense of identification and care for those suffering. The reason why these things have been mistaken for true virtue is that the driving instinct belongs to the general nature of virtue. They are sentiments that reach out toward others and do not blatantly and offensively betray self-love. Sometimes these instincts resemble virtue in both the primary ground (benevolence) and the secondary ground (approbation of and complacence in virtue itself). They display a negative moral goodness, that is these are never mistaken for true moral evil. Protection of family is morally superior to betrayal of family and giving aid to the hurting and downcast is morally superior to trouncing on the poverty-stricken. Also, these instincts in action have much the same effect in human relations as true virtue in accomplishing social good and restraining vice. These are affections are of the same denomination as those that are truly virtuous.

Edwards discusses two views of why mock virtue that is in reality self-love looks like true virtue in the intention of its perpetrator. The first is “sentiment,” an internal sense of the beautiful that is intuitively approved. These operate as a denomination of virtue because they are indeed real, a reflection of the image of God in man, and not mere labels contrived by social observers. First, God gives what is agreement with being in general. We find something in humanity as a whole and in the entire created order that calls for our admiration and care. Second, God gives what is in accord with his own temper and nature. As image-bearers we are “gods” over those things within our sphere of influence. Third, only in this way can creatures agree with each other. Only if there is a sense of virtue in us that has its origin in an absolute sphere outside of us can we find common values in accord with which we cooperate. Fourth, only in this way can people love their own happiness and use it as a source for apparent good for others.

The second reason is that virtue not only is implanted in the sentiment of each individual, but that is of the nature and fitness of things—the spiritual and ethical world is a reality and operates more or less efficiently and appropriately when actions match the ethical parameters around which the world was created. Thus, when our moral sense and actions agree with the nature of things, when the exercise of virtue is consistent with the uniformity and natural agreement of things, thus helping establish order, justice, compassion, and productivity in a community, we recognize that the sense of morality, good, evil, right, wrong are not altogether unfixed and arbitrary. God has made the world to operate with greatest good for all people when it copies true virtue.

With this understanding of the nature of true virtue, we see that duty assumes perfection of holiness, beauty, virtue, harmony, proportion, symmetry, order, and justice.  Love is the first duty arising from this infinitely compelling perfection. This is why it is harmonious both with rationality and with divine revelation that love can be embraced within a commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God, ..and your neighbor as yourself.” The highest of virtues and the foundation of all true virtue begins with a divinely mandated duty.

There are two words to define at the outset of today’s post. The first is monergism, and the other is synergism. Both of these words contain the Greek word “ergon” which means “work.” The prefix syn means “with”, and the prefix monomeans “alone.”
In Christian theology, the word “Synergism” means that the new birth (regeneration) results from the work of both God and man together. It essentially teaches that being born again is God’s work with man. God does His part; man does his part, and voila! – regeneration.
Monergism, on the other hand, says that the new birth is entirely God’s work alone. Regeneration, rather than being God laboring “with” man, is God’s work in man. Every person is in such a dead and depraved condition that he or she is unable and unwilling to bring about the new birth. God does this of His own will by the Word of truth according to His great mercy (cf. James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:3).
As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached, “[Y]ou do not become a Christian as the result of human activity, not even human endeavor at its best and highest…Becoming a Christian is all of God.”[1]
In today’s post, I’d like to give you 3 practical arguments for why you should hold to monergism as opposed to being a synergist. You should believe that regeneration is God’s work alone apart from any assistance from the sinner. Here’s why:

The Bible is Trustworthy

I had to begin here. You should hold to monergism because it’s what the Bible teaches. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter so much what Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else believed in comparison to what the Bible teaches.
Titus 3:5 teaches us that we did not save ourselves. We did not make ourselves savable. Rather, God saved us without our assistance.
We must not let our particular soteriological tradition or personal experience, or heroes of the faith cloud our understanding of what the Scriptures teach. The Bible is sufficient to teach us how salvation works. It is also authoritative; therefore we are obligated to trust its precious truth! “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help at all” (John 6:63).
As J.C. Ryle preached, “if the Bible be indeed true and our only guide to heaven, and this I trust you are call ready to allow, it surely must be the duty of every wise and thinking man to lay to heart each doctrine which it contains, and while he adds nothing to it, to be careful that he takes nothing from it.”[2]
The Bible is our source for all sound doctrine. Everything we believe must be held up to the scrutiny of God’s Word. Everything we believe must flow from this Book for it is truth. It is in the truth we must stand, and it is by the truth that we are sanctified (John 17:17). The Bible is worthy of our time and study.
If the Bible never presses you, never makes you uncomfortable, never leads you to question yourself, never challenges you, never changes your mind, actions, and heart, never humbles you, never convicts you…I’m not sure which translation you’re using but switch now. Of course, the problem is not the “translation,” is it? It’s operator error.
To follow Jesus is to follow His Word. It is to desire to understand and know and grow in sound doctrine. And so rightly grasping the doctrine of monergism is practical because to not understand it is to misunderstand a core truth of the Bible.
The Bible is our source for all sound doctrine. Everything we believe must be held up to the scrutiny of God’s Word.
Yes, you can be a Christian and be confused on this doctrine. But why would you want to be confused or mistaken? Doesn’t being a Christian make you want to know His word rightly?
Psalm 111:2 says, “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.” Oh, how great a work of God is the new birth! So, may we continue to study to remove any unbiblical notions of this precious work from our minds.

The Holy Spirit is Truly God

Now, I do not mean to imply that those who do not hold to monergism are not trinitarians! But I do want to press us to understand that all sound doctrine is interconnected. Monergism is a consistent way of magnifying and glorying in the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Herman Bavinck writes,
The Christian church…has consistently – and all the more vigorously as it gained more insight into the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit – assumed a special divine activity in regeneration. Just as, to the extent it became more firmly persuaded of the necessity of internal grace, it confessed all the more decisively and joyfully the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit.[3]
Now, certainly synergists can identify “a special divine activity in regeneration.” But only monergism understands this divine activity as wholly sovereign and all of grace, thus attributing to the Holy Spirit His due glory for bringing about the new birth.
To suppose the Holy Spirit needs our help in the new birth separates how He works from that of the Father and the Son. For example, the Father did not need our help in electing us for salvation. The Son did not need our help in dying on the cross for our sins. Why then would the 3rd Person of the Trinity need our help in regeneration? Is He lesser than the Father or Son? Of course not!
John Flavel rightly wrote,
[T]he Father hath elected, and the Son hath redeemed; but until the Spirit (who is the last cause) hath wrought his part also, we cannot be saved. For he comes in the Father’s and in the Son’s name and authority, to put the last hand to the work of our salvation, by bringing all the fruits of election and redemption home to our souls in this work of effectual vocation.[4]
Now, understand my point here. I am not saying that someone who thinks regeneration is a work of God and man together is out and out denying the Trinity. Synergism is not a heresy.[5] But I am saying that if you think regeneration is a work of God and a work of man together, you are being inconsistent in your understanding of the Trinity.
In the whole scope of salvation, in the entire trinitarian work of salvation, the Father doesn’t need your help. The Son doesn’t need your help. But the Holy Spirit does need your help? To say He does besmirches His glory.
May it never be so, beloved. The wind blows where it wishes. The Spirit moves as He will. He is sovereign. He is holy. He is in control. He is deserving of our worship.
Jonathan Edwards helpfully writes that “Those who are in a state of salvation are to attribute it to sovereign grace alone, and to give all the praise to him, who maketh them differ from others.”[6] He goes on to write how we ought to exalt God the Father and God the Son. But he does not forget the Holy Spirit! Edwards reminds Christians that they ought to also,
[E]xalt God the Holy Ghost, who of sovereign grace has called them out of darkness into marvellous [sic] light; who has by his own immediate and free operation, led them into an understanding of the evil and danger of sin, and brought them off from their own righteousness, and opened their eyes to discover the glory of God, and the wonderful riches of God in Jesus Christ, and has sanctified them, and made them new creatures.[7]

It makes You a Better Evangelist

There is a certain faulty line of reasoning that says if God is completely sovereign in salvation, choosing whom He will and regenerating whom He will, then evangelism is unnecessary. This is an example of fallen men using fallen logic to reject the plain teaching of the Scriptures. The sovereignty of God in salvation in no way negates the responsibility of believers to proclaim the gospel nor does it lessen the responsibility of sinners to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. As Will Metzger notes, “[W]e should not consider these two doctrines of sovereignty and responsibility as enemies but rather see them the way the Bible does–as friends!”[8]
Adhering to monergism actually makes us better evangelists. How so? Because it reminds us not that God “might” save, but that He will save His people from their sins (cf. Matthew 1:21). It confirms that evangelism will ultimately prove fruitful in the long run.
It also helps us to not rely on gimmicks or emotionalism in order to see people savingly converted to Christ. Rather, we rely on the power of the truth of the gospel proclaimed. God causes us to be born again by the word of truth according to the power of the gospel (cf. James 1:18).
But how do we “close the deal” with sinners then? If we believe in this biblical doctrine of regeneration and trust the monergistic power of God, what do we do to see sinners savingly converted to Christ? Am I saying we just do nothing? Of course not!
W.B. Sprague rightly lectured, “[If] the doctrine of divine influence be preached in such a way as to authorize the inference that man has nothing to do in respect to his salvation, but wait to be operated upon like a mere machine…there is little probability that [people] will be converted.”[9]
What did we see Paul tell the Philippian Jailer? Believe! (Acts 16:31). He did not say, “Wait to see if you will be regenerated!” Instead, he gave him the imperative, Believe. It was the Jailer’s duty to believe on Christ.
Revelation 22:17 declares, “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.” All men, women, boys, and girls are invited (and commanded) to come to Christ in saving faith.
The sovereignty of God in salvation in no way negates the responsibility of believers to proclaim the gospel nor does it lessen the responsibility of sinners to repent of their sins and believe the gospel.
And this proclamation we are to publish to the uttermost parts of the earth. Trust, dear soul. Come to Christ! Repent of your sins and believe the gospel. We must preach the gospel and issue this summons to respond to all sinners regardless of our assessment of their situation. All we need to know is they are sinners. We have been commanded to share the gospel with them, and monergism reminds us that God is willing to use the proclamation of His gospel to actually and really and truly save many.
Both in Scripture and history we see the circumstances surrounding conversion happen in a variety of ways. Charles Spurgeon heard a sermon from a layperson in the midst of a wintry storm. George Whitefield read a book by Henry Scougal. John Newton recalled Scripture he had memorized as a child. The Philippian Jailer was on the brink of committing suicide.
But all of these stories, in fact every conversion story, are tied to the gospel’s proclamation and a willful response of faith. That volitional response of faith is an inevitable reaction to the Spirit’s effectual calling and sovereign gifting. But we don’t have control over that. It is not our business to power the wind but to preach the Word. It is our duty to “implore [sinners] on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).
We know a sinner will not make one step toward God in his own power, for the flesh is no help at all (cf. John 6:63). But God…(Eph. 2:4). Salvation truly is of the Lord! (cf. Jonah 2:9). Monergism, then, gives us all the confidence in God and His Work, and thus motivates us to be better evangelists.
There are more reasons to hold to monergism. Regenerate church membership and understand the proper mode and subjects of baptism come to mind. But the three above reasons are enough to consider for today. I hope you’ll think through them and affirm the wonderful biblical truth of monergistic regeneration.

[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Born of God: Sermons from John, Chapter One (Carlisle, PA Banner of Truth Trust, 2011), 233.
[2] J. C. Ryle, The Christian Race and Other Sermons (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900), 15–16.
[3] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI Baker Academic, 2006), 78.
[4] John Flavel, The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, vol. 2, (London, England: W. Baynes and Son, 1820), 20.
[5] It should be noted, however, that synergism is a dangerous trajectory and an inconsistent position within Christian orthodoxy.
[6] Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 854.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Tell the Truth, 109.
[9] William B. Sprague, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, (London, England Banner of Truth Trust, 1959), 84.

Tweet Share