One image of this is found in Zechariah 13:8-9:

It starts with God speaking of a division among the people. Two-thirds are set aside for destruction while one-third will be saved from the coming invaders. This one-third, this remnant of the people, is not set aside because of their own merit but because of the mercy of God. In Romans 11:5 Paul compares us with the faithful few of Elijah’s day and describes us as a remnant chosen by grace.

So God designates a remnant of the people. And what does he do with this remnant? He refines them, he tries them, he purifies them in the fire that burns away every impurity. He takes that which is impure and makes it pure. Only after he has done this work will the people call on his name. They must call on him, they must pursue him by faith, but because of his work, they will call on him. And when they call on him, he will declare them to be his people.

Thanks be to God for his mercy to us, to take that which was foul with sin and completely in rebellion against God, to cleanse us, to purify us, to give us hearts of love for him, and to make us his children. Some people say this theology is heresy. I call it grace, mercy, and life.

The following comes from Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner, from his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, and deals with the question of infant salvation:

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God’s “tender mercies are over all His works,” and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills . . . And if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation . . . This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway.”

Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view.

Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their “salvation” is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are “saved” to be very small and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.

The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated.

In regard to this question Dr. S. G. Craig has written: “We take it that no doctrine of infant salvation is Christian that does not assume that infants are lost members of a lost race for whom there is no salvation apart from Christ. It must be obvious to all, therefore, that the doctrine that all dying in infancy are saved will not fit into the Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic system of thought with their teaching of baptismal regeneration; as clearly most of those who have died in infancy have not been baptized. It is obvious also that the Lutheran system of thought provides no place for the notion that all dying in infancy are saved because of the necessity it attaches to the means of grace, especially the Word and the Sacraments. If grace is only in the means of grace—in the case of infants in baptism—it seems clear that most of those who have died in infancy have not been the recipients of grace. Equally clear is it that the Arminian has no right to believe in the salvation of all dying in infancy; in fact, it is not so clear that he has any right to believe in the salvation of any dying in infancy. For according to the Arminians, even the evangelical Arminians, God in His grace has merely provided men with an opportunity for salvation. It does not appear, however, that a mere opportunity for salvation can be of any avail for those dying in infancy.”

Though rejecting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and turning the baptism of the non-elect into an empty form, Calvinism, on the other hand, extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible Church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race even up to the present time has been among the elect. Furthermore, it may be said that since Calvinists bold that saving faith in Christ is the only requirement for salvation on the part of adults, they never make membership in the external Church to be either a requirement or a guarantee of salvation. They believe that many adults who have no connection with the external Church are nevertheless saved. Every consistent Christian will, of course, submit himself for baptism in accordance with the plain Scripture command and will become a member of the external Church; yet many others, either because of weakness of faith or because they lack the opportunity, do not carry out that command.

It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating that “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ” (Chap. X. Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has taught that some dying in infancy are lost. Concerning this Dr. Craig says: “The history of the phrase ‘Elect infants dying in infancy’ makes clear that the contrast implied was not between ‘elect infants dying in infancy’ and ‘non-elect infants dying in infancy,’ but rather between ‘elect infants dying in infancy’ and ‘elect infants living to grow up.’ ” However, in order to guard against misunderstanding, furthered by unfriendly controversialists, the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. adopted in 1903 a Declaratory Statement which reads as follows: “With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.”

Concerning this Declaratory Statement Dr. Craig says: “It is obvious that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the teaching of Chapter X, Section 3 of the Confession of Faith inasmuch as it states positively that all who die in infancy are saved. Some hold that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but, be that as it may, it makes it impossible for any person to even plausibly maintain that Presbyterians teach that there are non-elect infants who die in infancy. No doubt there have been individual Presbyterians who held that some of those who die in infancy have been lost; but such was never the official teaching of the Presbyterian Church and as matters now stand such a position is contradicted by the Church’s creed.”

It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence and sinlessness. Calvin’s views in this respect have been quite thoroughly investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the following paragraph: “Calvin teaches that all the reprobate ‘procure’—(that is his own word)—’procure’ their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of ‘impiety,’ ‘wickedness,’ and ‘rebellion.’ Now reprobate infants, though guilty of original sin and under condemnation, cannot, while they are infants, thus ‘procure’ their own destruction by their personal acts of impiety, wickedness, and rebellion. They must, therefore, live to the years of moral responsibility in order to perpetrate the acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion, which Calvin defines as the mode through which they procure their destruction. While, therefore, Calvin teaches that there are reprobate infants, and that these will be finally lost, he nowhere teaches that they will be lost as infants, and while they are infants; but, on the contrary, he declares that all the reprobate ‘procure’ their own destruction by personal acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion. Consequently, his own reasoning compels him to hold (to be consistent with himself), that no reprobate child can die in infancy; but all such must live to the age of moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin.”

In none of Calvin’s writings does he say, either directly or by good and necessary inference, that any dying in infancy are lost. Most of the passages which are brought forth by opponents to prove this point are merely assertions of his well known doctrine of original sin, in which he taught the universal guilt and depravity of the entire race. Most of these are from highly controversial sections where he is discussing other doctrines and where he speaks unguardedly; but when taken in their context the meaning is not often in doubt. Calvin simply says of all infants what David specifically said of himself: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me,” Psalm 51:5; or what Paul said, “In Adam all die,” 1 Corinthians 15:22; or again, that all are “by nature, the children of wrath,” Ephesians 2:3.

While studying Ephesians 6:23-24, I was surprised to note two demonstrations of monergism. Now, biblical evidence of monergism can be found over and over again, I just did not expect to find it here:

Peace be to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.
Ephesians 6:23-24

Take a moment and see if you can spot the two ways this passage presents monergism, the belief that salvation is entirely the work of God. Need a hint? The first way is found in verse 23; the second way starts with verse 24 but reaches back to verse 23.

Monergism in the gifts of grace

The first way is fairly straightforward. In blessing the Ephesians, Paul calls for them to receive peace, love, and faith. These would each be given to us by God’s grace – that is, we do not merit them; God gives them to us freely by his own good pleasure. Peace and love would be two-dimensional: peace between man and God, love between man and God, peace between man and man, love between man and man. Faith is one-dimensional: faith in God. Paul describes each of these as gifts coming from God. Neither faith nor love nor peace come as a result of our own free-will decision for Christ, nor as a result of our effort or achievement. Even saving faith comes as a gift from God (see also Ephesians 2:8-9). And love, which demonstrates the work of God in us (see Romans 5:5 and 1 John 4:12), is given to us from God.

So here is monergism. It is as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:3-4: God has given us everything pertaining to life and godliness. Every bit of it comes from him, none of it comes from us. We do not cooperate in any independent sense, for any effort we perform is carried out through the strength he gives us. Paul reinforces this point over in Philippians 2:13: …it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Salvation belongs to our God, and praise be God that he has given us salvation, making us his children.

Monergism in the qualification for grace

The second example of monergism is harder to spot, so bear with me. In verse 24 Paul says, Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. In verse 23 Paul already blessed them with gifts of grace, so in a sense Paul goes from being specific in verse 23 to more general in verse 24. “I bless you specifically with these aspects of God’s grace, but more than that I bless you with the full measure of God’s grace.”

In verse 24, this blessing of grace is qualified with the limiting phrase, all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. While God extends some grace to everyone, the grace Paul has in mind (God’s covenant blessings for his people) is only for those who love God with true, lasting love.

On the surface, this might look like evidence of synergism. “See!” a synergist might note, “Paul says we have to love God in order to receive grace! We cooperate with him!” The problem with this argument is what Paul has just said in verse 23. We already noted that love comes as a gift of God. Romans 5:5 helps illustrate this when Paul says, …God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. This does not just mean God’s love for us, it also means our love for God. The Holy Spirit pours God’s love into our hearts and with that love we love God. 1 John supports this point over and over again, as in 1 John 4:19: We love because he first loved us. His love is the source of our love.

So love itself is a gift from God, but we cannot receive gifts from God (grace) until we love him (Paul’s limiting statement in verse 24), but we cannot love him unless he gives love to us. Is there any way to receive God’s grace? There are two parts to resolving this dilemma.

God extends grace

Simply put, unless God extends grace to us and pours his love into our hearts, we are hopeless. We cannot love him unless he fills us with his love. The monergistic system becomes necessary: it is impossible for us to love God; we cannot cooperate to receive his grace. He must do it, or we are hopeless.

With grace comes love

And in fact, he does do it. God extends grace to those he chooses to save. Among other things, he pours love into the hearts of his elect, giving us his grace. But verse 24 seems to indicate that love must be present in order to receive grace, so I must love God to receive grace from God. What actually happens is that love and grace are born in us simultaneously. Immediately as God extends grace to us, our hearts fill with love for him. It is inevitable: his grace to us creates our love for him. We cannot receive this kind of grace and still refuse to love him.

This is like someone opening his eyes. Assuming you are not blind (a safe assumption, unless someone is reading this blog entry to you), when you open your eyes, you immediately begin to see (yes, you were already seeing the back of your eyelids, but that doesn’t count). You will not see unless you open your eyes, but sight comes immediately as the eyes open. We can say that sight comes because we opened our eyes, but we cannot say that it comes after we opened our eyes. As you open your eyes, you are able to see.

Another illustration is fire. When you strike a match, which happens first, light, or heat? We might say that the light comes from the chemical reaction caused by the heat, but light and heat are simultaneous products of fire. (Both illustrations – fire and eyesight – come from John Piper.)

So it is with this love (and faith and peace) and God’s grace. As he gives us his grace, we are filled with love for him, faith in him, and peace with him. They come immediately with his grace. Now, growing in Christ is a process that will take the rest of our lives, but the process is begun in an instant when God, completely on his own (monergistically), works salvation in us.

There are two types of Christians in the world: monergists and synergists. These terms describe what people believe about the role of God and man in salvation. Most theological labels have limited usefulness because of imprecision. Most non-Calvinists are not Arminian, yet most non-Calvinist are called Arminian. Similarly, many Calvinists do not agree with many of Calvin’s beliefs yet they are still called Calvinists. But monergism and synergism are precise enough to provide a clear distinction among Christians.

Synergism

Synergism is the position of the non-Calvinist and expresses the belief that God and man cooperate in salvation. The classic illustration of synergism is that God extends his hand halfway and waits for us to reach the other half. God may do most of the work for our salvation, but the final act to bring salvation is something we do: we pray a prayer, we exercise faith, we repent and turn from sin to God. Each of these would be considered acts performed without the superimposing work of the Holy Spirit. That is, while the Holy Spirit may woo or draw us, the determining factor in our salvation is our free-will decision to accept Christ.

Monergism

Monergism is the Calvinist position and expresses the belief that salvation is entirely God’s work. We do not cooperate. We do not grasp Jesus’ outstretched hand. We are not the final determining factor. Every step of salvation is God’s work. Thus, those saved have been saved because God elected (chose) them, God drew them, God regenerated them (caused them to be born again), God gave them faith, and God turned that faith toward himself.

John and Jane

Another way of seeing the difference is demonstrated with John and Jane. John has become a Christian, Jane has not. What makes them different? Why has John accepted while Jane rejects? The synergist would answer that John and Jane both made free-will decisions to accept or reject. John is a Christian because he reached out and received the salvation extended to him by Jesus Christ and Jane is a non-Christian because she rejected salvation. Jane could have decided otherwise and could have reached out to receive salvation.

The monergist would answer that neither John nor Jane is capable of independently reaching out to receive salvation. The corruption of sin has blinded the minds of all people so that no one would receive salvation. So John is a Christian only because God intervened in his life to awaken him and create faith within him, while Jane is a non-Christian because God has not awakened her from her sin. Both John and Jane deserve judgment for their sins. God will not be unjust when he condemns Jane to Hell for her sin. Though she was never awakened from her blindness, hers was a blindness caused by her own sin.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and caused a great void to open up between man and God. There was no way we could cross that void. It was a deep canyon with God on one side and man on the other.

Jesus gave the solution by crossing the canyon, something we could not do. He came among us and lived and died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. The cross then became the bridge between God and man, giving us the means to cross the canyon and reach God. Through the cross we can find God and salvation.

Let me suggest an alternate picture.

God created man to live in relationship with him. We stood with him, walked with him. Then Adam and Eve sinned and all creation fell as though down a huge cliff. We stood at the bottom of that cliff with God at the top. Nothing we do would enable us to climb the cliff.

Jesus presented the solution by descending the cliff. He stepped down from high above and lived among fallen humanity. He died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins. Through the cross he draws us to himself. Jesus then ascends back to God at the top of the cliff, taking us with him.

The difference in these two illustrations is enormous. In both of them God is the one who makes salvation possible. Man is helpless to make a way to God. But in the first God only makes salvation possible, not certain – and only in a world different from our own. In the first illustration Jesus creates a bridge we must walk across to be saved, but this ignores man’s inability to walk toward God. Dead in our sins, we neither have the desire nor the ability to approach God. We are enemies in rebellion against him. The first illustration is truly semi-Pelagian in imagining some ability remains in man so that he can walk to God. Perhaps some who present this illustration would include the Arminian notion of prevenient grace, the belief that God has enabled people to respond to him. This would take the illustration out of the realm of Pelagian heresy but it still leaves the person with an ability the Bible says we simply do not have.

The second illustration does a better job of presenting the biblical picture. It is not perfect, no illustration can contain everything, but it shows that man is not capable of any of the work to reach God.

God brings us to himself. He descends the cliff, does what is necessary to bring us into righteousness, then wraps his arms around us and carries us with him back into Heaven. This is what it means to be saved, to be found in the arms of Christ when he has returned to his heavenly home. “But wait!” you say “He was raised 2,000 years ago! I was not there, I could not have been risen with him!” Ahh but you were, dear saint. Thus we are told a few times in the New Testament, as at Ephesians 2:6, that God has raised us up with him and ​seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. In an event that is both very real and very mysterious, all the saints of God were raised with Jesus Christ. He carried us from the fallen world to the throne of his Father. This is the only way our salvation could take place.

Perhaps I should make some tracts.

Here is part of his argument:

Membership is the church’s corporate endorsement of a person’s salvation. Yet how can a congregation honestly testify that someone invisible to it is faithfully running the race? 

And while on the subject of evangelism, never promise people that if they follow a particular method it will result in a definite conversion. Salvation is in God’s hands, not ours, and he has made no guarantees.

Death, that great enemy, that old intruder on life, that fruit of the fall creates a reality that will be experienced by every living thing. But for Christians death gives us tragic hope. The point when we can shed ourselves of sinful flesh. It says something about how pervasive sin is in our lives that it takes death to completely rip it from us. Sin is conquered but we still haul its corpse around and only death will remove the corpse from us.

This is why for the saints it is not death to die. That old enemy gives us hope of a life free from sin. Death is the curse of the fall but death is also promise for believers.

Sovereign Grace Music has a wonderful song called It Is Not Death to Die on their CD Come Weary Saints. The words of the song describe Christian death very well.

It is not death to die
To leave this weary road
And join the saints who dwell on high
Who’ve found their home with God

It is not death to close
The eyes long dimmed by tears
And wake in joy before Your throne
Delivered from our fears

O Jesus, conquering the grave
Your precious blood has power to save
Those who trust in You
Will in Your mercy find
That it is not death to die

It is not death to fling
Aside this earthly dust
And rise with strong and noble wing
To live among the just

It is not death to hear
The key unlock the door
That sets us free from mortal years
To praise You evermore
O Jesus, conquering the grave
Your precious blood has power to save
Those who trust in You
Will in Your mercy find
That it is not death to die

I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek Him, seeking me.
It was not I that found O Savior true;
No, I was found of Thee.

I find, I walk, I love, but oh, the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to Thee!
For Thou wert long beforehand with my soul
Always Thou lovest me.

Thou didst reach forth Thy hand and mine enfold;
I walked and sank not on the storm vexed sea
‘Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold,
As Thou, dear Lord, on me.

I find, I walk, I love, but oh, the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to Thee!
For Thou wert long beforehand with my soul
Always Thou lovest me.

You can find the music and a demo track here.