Is it really synergism?

[Revmitchell]

The One that allows a lost sinnerto get saved is the Holy Spirit, working thru the Gospel, for if the Spirit did not choose at that time to open up the hearts and minds of the sinner, they remain spiritually deaf and dumb!

When you are able to defend that claim come back and let us know.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Strawman arguments is #4 on my list of lame arguments that Calvinists use.

Define Calvinists... like what characteristics makes one a Calvinist?

See, this is an example of what I am talking about. I reject this black or white fallacy and your attempt to set the narrative.. In fact my position is as I laid out in the op. I will expand on it a bit more. I reject total depravity. It is just not taught in scripture. I do hold to human depravity. We are all depraved but not in totality. We were made in God's image and that has not been totally lost.

Those of the reformed persuasion like to focus on the idea of whose will determines salvation and then likes to twist the receiving of the gift of salvation as playing a part in the giving and of the will. The will that determines the salvation of man begins and ends at the time the plan to save man was devised and decided by God. How man responds to the free offer of salvation is not relevant to the determination of who has the will, power, and authority to freely offer it in the first place.

Further, scripture makes clear that the power to salvation is the gospel. Not the will.

So by your depravity definition, when are we depraved and when are we not?

 

[Revmitchell]

So by your depravity definition, when are we depraved and when are we not?

I never posted anything that would legitimize such a question. Very odd.

 

[InTheLight]

I never posted anything that would legitimize such a question. Very odd.

Yep. It's another example of a mixture of mind-reading and a strawman. EW&F has fixed your beliefs in his head (mind-reading) and now he wants to build a strawman so he can knock it down.

If he bothered to read what you actually had written he would see that you believe in human depravity, not in total depravity. But the blood sport of pouncing on non-Cals is strong with this one.

 

[InTheLight]

Define Calvinists... like what characteristics makes one a Calvinist?

Not interested in derailing this thread, but I will say that Calvinists hold to TULIP.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not interested in derailing this thread, .

Thanks

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not interested in derailing this thread, but I will say that Calvinists hold to TULIP.

You mean Particular Redemption?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yep. It's another example of a mixture of mind-reading and a strawman. EW&F has fixed your beliefs in his head (mind-reading) and now he wants to build a strawman so he can knock it down.

If he bothered to read what you actually had written he would see that you believe in human depravity, not in total depravity. But the blood sport of pouncing on non-Cals is strong with this one.

Of course you are wrong but we shan’t throw him off his pontificating his opinion. carry on

 

[Reynolds]

The term “Synergism” is an accusation (unfounded) against those with whom those of the reformed position disagrees with in regards to salvation of man. In looking at varying definitions from sources such as monergism.com and Alpha and Omega ministries the writing on this was unnecessarily divisive so I will sum it up in my own words. It is believed by those who call themselves monergists that when synergism is used in the theological context it is a reference to the belief that man works synergistically with God to obtain salvation. If man is required to choose to respond to God’s offer of salvation without first having been regenerated then this is viewed as cooperating with God to effect man’s salvation. In other words it gives man and God equal responsibility in the final outcome of man being saved. This is in complete error and conflates man’s choice to believe with God’s choice to save.

There are several problems with this. First, since God devised, set into motion, and determined the boundaries for man’s responsibility to respond to God’s offer of salvation (John 1:12-13) it leaves His sovereignty in tact and robs man of any merit or claim on his own salvation. Man did not decide that the Father would send His Son as a sacrifice on our behalf, God did (John 3:16). Man did not decide that the preaching of the gospel would be the element that would open man’s heart to God, God did Romans 1:16). Man did not decide that if man calls upon the Lord he would be saved, God did (Romans 10:13). Man did not decide that man would be the agent to deliver the gospel to the lost, God did (Romans 10:15; Matthew 28:18-20). Given these facts, it is understood that only God has the power, authority, and ability to save man. Man’s response, being necessary (Romans 10:13) and decided by God (John1:13), is not a meritorious factor.

In Roman 6:23 God calls salvation a gift. It is a gift given to fallen man who desperately needs salvation. How are gifts given? Do we give gifts to those who do not want them? Do we give gifts to those who do not reach out and receive them? How does one receive the gift offered? We all know the answer which is reach out with our hands and take hold of it and take possession. Once someone reaches out and receives the gift, do we then say the receiver of the gift also took part in giving himself the gift, because he reached out (works) and took possession of it? Of course not! Neither should the one who hears the gospel and chooses to believe and calls out to God (Romans 10:9-13).

Man hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, and receiving the gospel is in fact, not cooperating but simply taking possession of what is being offered. If we do not say that the receiving of worldly gifts is all part of the giving of those gifts then it is completely inconsistent to say the opposite when it comes to salvation.

Further, I would add that in either one of the sources I have listed, which I believe to represent the vast majority of reformed doctrine, is the actual power of salvation mentioned (Romans 1:16). We will find, and those authors well know, that in Romans 1 the power of salvation is the gospel. It is no where mentioned, anywhere in scripture, that the power of salvation is being regenerated first. I believe that when this subject comes up the power of salvation should always be included. But let me tell you what does get included from not all but far too many in this reformed crowd. Snide, backhanded, insults. Examples:

1. “To put it simply, synergism is the belief that faith is produced by our unregenerated human nature...”[1]

Now, no one believes that and no one claims that. In other words it is a strawman. See when you leave out and important part of this discussion like Romans 1:16 then you can more easily lob false accusations such as that. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent and informed it leaves the conclusion that such accusations are intentional regardless of the lack of integrity it takes to do so. The response to objections to such false accusations are found at the Alpha and Omega web page where it is said:

2. “Many people do not like being labeled “Arminian” (e.g. “I am neither Calvinist or Arminian!) The reality, however, is their theology functions synergistically. Thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe. At the end of the day, they are Arminian, whether they like it or not.”[2]

So this is a type of typical response that is often thrown out much like a projectile from an M16 rifle. They are right in how they characterize someone else’ position. They get to set the narrative about someone else’ position. And if someone else doesn’t agree with it or like it to bad so sad maybe one of these days you will be honest about your own position. In fact I have heard that very thing time and time again on this board.

It seems that discussions on this board have been more of a blood sport than people reasoning through doctrine and sharing their positions. It is all about beating the other down and winning the debate. If you refuse to engage in that blood sport by pulling away from someone who goes down that path then you are labeled as ignoring because you have been proven wrong. If you reword your position in order to give clarification then you are labeled as walking back your original position.

The truth is that mischaracterizing someone else’ position to fit your demonization of it is slanderous, it is ungodly, and should have no place in our discussions. The term synergism is not representative of a great many people and it is slanderous to insist it is.


[1] Synergism | Monergism

[2] Synergism | Alpha and Omega Ministries

I don't care if they call me a "synergist."

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't care if they call me a "synergist."

That is up to you but I already knew that. It just does not represent me.

 

[InTheLight]

The truth is that mischaracterizing someone else’ position to fit your demonization of it is slanderous, it is ungodly, and should have no place in our discussions. The term synergism is not representative of a great many people and it is slanderous to insist it is.


[1] Synergism | Monergism

[2] Synergism | Alpha and Omega Ministries

I went back and read the articles at the links. Wow, talk about misrepresentation. Now I know where Calvinists get their talking points. Here's an example:

Many people do not like being labeled “Arminian” (e.g. “I am neither Calvinist or Arminian!) The reality, however, is their theology functions synergistically. Thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe. At the end of the day, they are Arminian, whether they like it or not.


Here's a great example of a strawman from the article:
I have never heard an Arminian pray:
“God, only whisper in the unbeliever’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission by the unbeliever.”

At one point the author quotes John 1, but I cannot for the life of me find what translation is being employed. Probably the Calvinist's Bible:

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

 

[Reynolds]

That is up to you but I already knew that. It just does not represent me.

I didn't say I was a synergist. I said I didn't care if they called me one. You let the Calvinists get in your head and mess with you.

 

[InTheLight]

At one point the author quotes John 1, but I cannot for the life of me find what translation is being employed. Probably the Calvinist's Bible:

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

Wow, it's the latest NIV. Incredible.

 

[Gup20]

See, this is an example of what I am talking about. I reject this black or white fallacy and your attempt to set the narrative.. In fact my position is as I laid out in the op. I will expand on it a bit more. I reject total depravity. It is just not taught in scripture. I do hold to human depravity. We are all depraved but not in totality. We were made in God's image and that has not been totally lost.

Those of the reformed persuasion like to focus on the idea of whose will determines salvation and then likes to twist the receiving of the gift of salvation as playing a part in the giving and of the will. The will that determines the salvation of man begins and ends at the time the plan to save man was devised and decided by God. How man responds to the free offer of salvation is not relevant to the determination of who has the will, power, and authority to freely offer it in the first place.

Further, scripture makes clear that the power to salvation is the gospel. Not the will.

I agree that we are not wholly depraved.

Gen 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:17
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Rom 2:14-15
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,​

We see here that we have the knowledge of GOOD and evil... not just the knowledge of evil. Additionally, we see that even the gentiles who do not have the law have God's good law written on their hearts... so they cannot be completely depraved.

 

[Gup20]

Wow, it's the latest NIV. Incredible.

The Bible gives us the details on how we are adopted as children of God.

Gal 3:6-7 NASB
6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.​

 

[Gup20]

Define Calvinists... like what characteristics makes one a Calvinist?


So by your depravity definition, when are we depraved and when are we not?

Deu 30:11-14, 19 NASB
11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Clearly, the choice for salvation is not beyond our capability... and the choice is not made in heaven.

Certainly we are not too depraved when God Himself says we are not too depraved.

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn't say I was a synergist. I said I didn't care if they called me one. You let the Calvinists get in your head and mess with you.

It seems like you had a conversation with Reformed where you admitted to it as well as being an Arminian.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Deu 30:11-14, 19 NASB
11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Clearly, the choice for salvation is not beyond our capability... and the choice is not made in heaven.

Certainly we are not too depraved when God Himself says we are not too depraved.

But yet you ignore Ephesians 2:1-3

 

[Reynolds]

It seems like you had a conversation with Reformed where you admitted to it as well as being an Arminian.

I didn't admit synergism. I have always proudly and boldly proclaimed that I was a Classical Arminian. If you feel the need to call me a synergist, more power to you.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you feel the need to call me a synergist, more power to you.

Uh.....no