Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms

God offers a gift (Romans 6:23) Gifts can be received or rejected. Since when is the receiving of the gift also part of the giving. Just because one receives a gift does not mean they also took part in the giving of the gift.

 

Lame.

So of your own free will YOU CHOSE to receive the gift, right?

YOU could have, of your own free will, chose to reject the gift, right?

Mitch, you are a synergist whether you admit it or not.

 

Agreed. Our Free will no more saves us than someone's free will decision to allow a doctor to perform a life saving operation does. The doctor there does all the saving, even though you allowed him to save you, so the same Jesus Christ does all the saving, even though we have to turn to him and trust him to save us by an act of our will.

 

So we have God still impotent to save any of us until we allow Him to do that, correct?

 

I did not bother to read the two pages of following posts, I am addressing the opening post.
Monergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by the God without any help from the person being regenerated.

Synergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God with help from the person being regenerated.

But these definitions do not define exactly what is included in "the work of regeneration." The actual issue is whether God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, or by an unconditional election. If God chooses those who believe fully in Christ (those whose faith God credits as righteousness) is that a monergistic election or a synergistic election. If a person professes Christ, but God does not credit their faith as righteousness, and therefore does not choose him/her for salvation, is that monergism or synergism?

 

Does God elect based upon His will, or based upon ours?

 

There are only a few views one can take on these matters. Those who refuse the label are either ignorant of church history, or stubbornly and arrogantly think that their take is unique to 2,000 years of church history.

 

AMENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. The Calvinist thinks that you and I are going to boast of our salvation simply because we are not Calvinists. What a joke right?

 

You've hit on something there. Trying to debate an issue here is impossible because the "other side" doesn't deal with the OP, rather flits from one subject to another, and to makes matters far worse, does not own a position, causing any and all debate to essentially reinvent the wheel.

You've done a good deed in posting this thread, but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

 

We are on the same page. I often start and post in threads for the sake of the lurkers.

 

The whole tone of the subthread would likely change for the better if a semi-Pelagian would admit he is a. . . semi-Pelagian.

 

I really must chuckle at the chattering between these two, about what a struggle it is to debate with the other camp, the other camp is "sticking their fingers in their ears," etc., when they are two of the most likely to mention having "blocked" other posters.