The monergism/synergism debate has been aflame for centuries, and this Calvinism/Arminianism Debate forum serves as an ample effort to extend the dialogue. It seems to me though that nearly every scriptural avenue has been explored. Calvinists see the word of God in one light and Arminians in another. Without agreeing on the exact condition of man and the revealed character of God, one party will likely never reconcile with the other on any topic relating to salvation. So what I’d like to suggest is something different. Albeit, I am not exactly comfortable with the premise in and of itself, but I simply can think of nothing further to add to the debate. As "Sola Scriptura" as my conviction is, what I am proposing is to discuss the issue at hand without the aid of scripture references. We should all know by now where everyone stands on Romans 9. I’m hoping to humbly engage this debate on the steam of fallen human rationale alone. One quick disclaimer: this may very well backfire horribly. Eh, here goes anyway…. I suppose now would be a good time to confess my bias. I believe firmly in the Doctrines of Grace and hold that there is no other truth outlining salvation. With that being said, I would like to present some rational assumptions behind the theology. At the core of the monergism/synergism conflict lies the buzz topic of “free will”. I will focus on this exclusively for my argument, but invite everyone to enlighten other areas of the debate. Free will just seems to me the most sensitive area to the average believer and unbeliever alike. After all, we all indeed have wills and we all make choices, many of which are clear and cognitive. We also all bear the responsibility of our decisions and live with the results, both good and bad. But why do we choose what we choose? We do so because we do what we please. We do what we want most. In fact, give all of the decisions to be made in life it is frankly startling to realize that never do we choose what we do not want most in life. There are plenty of times we do things when it would seem we would rather not, but even those choices are the better of the options available to us at the time. When it comes to cognitive decision-making, it is downright impossible for us to respond in the negative to our most desired stimulus. The argument, therefore, is that while we may indeed have the ability to choose whatever we want, we do not in fact have the ability to want what we want. Our seemingly “free” choices are very much weighted according to our nature and circumstances, things of which only God has perfect control. God renders our existence certain according to his good pleasure and divine purpose. This is a stark contrast to the rebuttal of mindless necessity required of fatalism that serves no such holy intention. For it is assuredly with mighty and holy intentions that God carries out everything under the sun, including the election, calling, salvation, and perseverance of his chosen people while simultaneously perfecting his justice in the righteous condemnation of evil. All the while, on the human level we live completely without coercion, doing well as we please and reaping so. If we are to be saved from our fallen state it is by God alone who supernaturally gives us a new want: salvation in Christ Jesus. Of this we cannot do ourselves, nor can we initiate the desire or dare to cast the decisive vote (thereby holding God as dependent upon our sovereign human choice), for that would be impossible in our fallen state. Now, for discussion on the strength of fallible wit. What say ye?