Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms

Dear all,

OK, I've read a bit more from older threads, and, as has been pointed out myriad times, there is an impasse, but an honest one. What stands out is that no side can in good conscience adopt the view of another without believing he would be violating clear Scripture, dishonoring God, etc., when taking it to what seems its logical conclusion. No one wants to violate Scripture. No one wants to give the wrong impression about God, or themselves. Etc. No one likes their position to be misinterpreted or misrepresented whether in words or by a label. Nothing new or surprising.

Conclusion: Labels carrying definitions created by, or reinterpreted by the other side will fail. Labels carrying unwanted baggage will fail. Good reasons some would rather avoid labels. It's bad enough when one's words are misrepresented or misinterpreted, which seems often. Oh, and specifically, the two labels proposed seem insufficient when explained from a Monergist viewpoint.

RT&

 

You always had a choice, but your answer would always be to reject Jesus if left to own free will!

 

Unless of course, he is a better man than every member of the Nation of Israel for thousands of years.

 

As Jesus said, :No One is good save for God alone"

 

Perhaps not much, but that is not the problem.

Dear Reformed,

In a debate between positions, you may explain why you do not accept my position, where you see flaws, etc. But this discussion is not that debate.

I submitted a possible rephrasing for a label you want to represent my position. First, you outright rejected it; then you rephrased or reinterpreted it so that it fit your opinion of my position. But you are on another side--you do not get to state my position for me.

Don stepped in and did something similar with my analogy for my position. It sounds like he has been trying to explain your position, even though he does not hold it. But again, the issue is whether I can accept one of the labels as fitting my position, not whether you can accept one as fitting my position.

From that discussion, I concluded that the definitions of both labels already contain elements that disqualify them to represent my position. One of them may describe your opinion of my position, but that is a good way to win a debate before it starts: build a strawman.

RT&

 

Romans 4:4-5. 'Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.' There is no 'or not' here. Our faith, if it is real, is accounted (or 'credited') for righteousness.

I assume you mean Matthew 7:21. 'Not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.' What is the will of the Father? 'And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life' (John 6:40, but check out v39 also). True saving faith is not believing that there was someone called |Jesus of Nazareth who lived a long time ago and did some good stuff; it's seeing yourself as a lost sinner and trusting in nothing but the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to save you. But everyone who trusts in Christ in that way will be saved, because that very faith is a gift from God.

So coming to Christ is a second operation after trusting in Him for salvation? 'Come to Me all you who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.' This is a gracious invitation to those who are outside of Christ, burdened by sin and labouring to be free of it. We cannot come to Christ physically, we can only come to Him in our hearts and mind when we believe in Him.

 

Dear Reformed,

Saying you have no idea what my view is seems a bit hyperbolic. I do not say that either you or I laid out a full systematic theology of any view here. It was not required for this simple experiment, which was to test the coverage of the labels. All I had to do was what you did in the OP, namely, offer descriptions of the labels you seemed to think sufficient to cover everyone's understanding of their own position.

When I did so, you accepted the one that applies to you (Monergism) but rejected the one that does not (Synergism). Later, you reinterpreted my experimental description for Synergism to fit your view of Synergism, then accepted your reinterpretation. Of course, this left me, and probably many others, standing out in the cold, as there were only two proposed labels to choose from.

It is clear to me that neither of the labels you proposed will cover my understanding of my position, or else neither of them will be allowed to do so by some holding a different view. I am not going to change the description of my view simply to suit opposition. If I were so inclined, I might come up with a more fitting label to cover my view, such as Reformed Monergism, which would likely make Traditional Monergists scream bloody murder.

If you do not understand the problem I am pointing out, then I am likely not the one to explain it to you. Mischaracterization of the other person's view, or what the other person is attempting to convey can be a monumental problem in discussions. Perhaps you will understand better when someone does this to you regarding your own position. Perhaps they already have, but if you are like most of us, it is much harder to see it when it happens the other way.

RT&

 

Now Martin claims God credits everyone's faith and never chooses to not credit the faith of the folks in Matthew 7. No kidding that is his absurd claim. But he seems to acknowledge there is something other than "tue saving faith" which would be the stuff not credited.

The he has God crediting as righteousness the faith God supposed instilled? Ludicrous, yes, but that is his claim. Then Martin claims God does not transfer individuals into Christ. On and on he goes, denying scripture with almost every thought. Who puts us in Christ? God does. Who baptizes us into Christ? God does. Who sets us apart (sanctifies us) in Christ? God does.

 

So what parts of John 6:40 and Acts 16:31 do you disagree with (or 'does Van disagree with' if you prefer)?
And where does Matthew 7 say that the people saying "Lord, Lord," actually believed?

 

LOL, more denial of scripture!! Do I disagree with scripture? Nope. But note Martin's implication that I do! So more changing the subject, and more denial of truth.

 

LOL, more denial of denial of Scripture!!

I think you'll find you do. Otherwise you would deal with John 6:40, Acts 16:31 and Matthew 7.

No implication; it was an outright declaration.

Only from you. I dealt directly with your post #111. Now either deal with my points or stop bleating.

 

Not one verse or passage in the entire bible supports the bogus view

 

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.

.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?

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.

No answer will be forthcoming.

 

'The one who comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.' There is no question of anyone trusting in Christ for salvation and then being told, "I'm sorry, but God doesn't like the look of your face, so He hasn't credited your faith as righteousness."
Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:2 etc.) and has given them to the Son to redeem. Not one of them will be lost, and none of them are subject to a Divine change of mind.
'And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.' The out working of this grace is through faith, which is in itself the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), and 'everyone' who believes (not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord!") will have everlasting life and there is no possibility of anyone being subject to review.

An answer came, but you didn't address it so here it is again.

 

I just worry that someone might actually believe his ramblings.

 

On this we agree completely