Monergism and Synergism

[Allan]

The subject matter is indeed a binary deal.

Only for those who make up their own game :thumbs:

 

[skypair]

Did you act as a "helper" in your salvation? If you believe you did you are a synergist (helper)

Christ needed my "concurrence" before He would JUSTIFY my soul ETERNALLY before His Father -- that is, save me. ("If you confess me before men, I will confess you before the Father." --- Rom 10:9-10, etal.)

In my daily walk of SANCTIFICATION -- aka: spiritual growth -- I am indeed, God's/Christ's "helper" a) in being saved from evil and b) in accomplishing His will in this world.

The question to you isn't so much whether you are a "synergist." It's at what point do you become a "synergist" in Christ's kingdom. I doubt seriously that you can ever say you are a Christian with a "free will" but yet never work synergistically with Christ to usher in "...Thy kingdom come, They will be done on earth...."

skypair

 

[jdlongmire]

Ya know, I can deal with calvinism it is pride, arrogance and purposeful slander that I have a hard time dealing with.

Now hold on, brother I am not slandering you (that is - reverting to ad hominum), just making an observation that you seem to want to redefine straightforward categories where no redefinition is required.

I probably should have been a little less straightforward... I sometimes cut to the chase without considering the other person's feelings, if I have done that in this case, my apologies.

Now the pride and arrogance part - that seems almost absurd (in the logic sense), because monergism is much more about cutting away Man's potential for pride and arrogance that the synergist model contains.

 

[skypair]

So-called "common-grace" has nothing to do with salvation. It's unfortunate that such a form of words ever was coined -- it leads to a lot of confusion.

And so it is with a lot of terms given us by Calvinism.

From what I gather, "common grace" is the gospel of grace that cannot be heard by those who are "predestined to condemnation" even though it is the same gospel that the "elect" hear unto "effectual grace."

It is "pure mysticism" that anyone can separate out the one from the other in the presentation of the same message!

skypair

 

[Rippon]

From what I gather, "common grace" is the gospel of grace that cannot be heard by those who are "predestined to condemnation" even though it is the same gospel that the "elect" hear unto "effectual grace."

[ quote = skypair ]

The history of your gleanings has been a sorry one. So-called 'common-grace' has nothing to do with the saving of one's soul.It is not the Gospel.Those foreordained to condemnation may experience many temporal bounties at the Lord's hand -- but it just fattens them up for their coming slaughter -- the Second Death.

 

[jdlongmire]

By the way - There is a fouth position that you have not set down.

D. None of the above.

I am that one .. however I come closest to Monergism.
According to the definition of Monergism only Primitive Baptists are true Monergists.
They hold that those of Gods elect will be saved whether or not they place faith in Christ. God will save them irregardless of faith.

If that is true - then that would be where they fall into error. A proper understanding of faith as a gift of God to His elect resolves this error.

 

[Allan]

Now hold on, brother I am not slandering you (that is - reverting to ad hominum), just making an observation that you seem to want to redefine straightforward categories where no redefinition is required.

Correction, you didn't make any observation at all. You catagorically set forth to put someone down. I hold strictly to the word of God and I test everything against it. I have never made any statement or allusions that truth is what I choose it to be.
You presume that because I don't agree with your 'opinions' that I have to think or be of the mind that all truth is subjective but that what 'you believe' is the real truth. Wrong - that is arrogance and pride.
But.. to try to degrade another believer based upon your 'opinions' regarding a certain perspective to that of someone worldly (and thus ungodly) that believe struth is what you make it (subjective) - is taking it to far.

Here is fact #1 - The definitions are not something the non-Cal determined nor anyone else for that matter as a proper view of their position.

Here is fact #2 - That definition was set forth by Calvinists to show a distinction between the two views as they percieved them.

Here is fact #3 - They based their definition upon what 'they' understood a particular view held to. (the deifination fits that of the Pelagain and Semi-Pelagain view - Arminianism according to their understanding fell in the catagory of Semi-Pel - the truth is, it did not).

Here is fact #4 - Their defintions are not the standard except to and for their own view thus making their truth in this are subjective at best. However it was not in accordance with what others truly hold to and believe. Thus their definition are poor at best.

Here is fact #5 - Non-Cals do not fall into either Catagory because both are improperly defined. But most specifically they do not fall into the Synergistic catagory because the defintion of synergism excludes us.


If monergism simply meant God alone saves, and God alone regenerate. Then Non-Cals and Arminians would be Monergists. However even their own defintion cause them to fall short of the monergism label.

I probably should have been a little less straightforward... I sometimes cut to the chase without considering the other person's feelings, if I have done that in this case, my apologies.

You didn't hurt my feeling in the least. What you said was baseless and purposeful to put another down. So yes, you were straightforward and wrong at the same time.

Now the pride and arrogance part - that seems almost absurd (in the logic sense), because monergism is much more about cutting away Man's potential for pride and arrogance that the synergist model contains.

I know many Calvinists that are very prideful and arrogent and Calvinism will not stop that and I know those you would place into the camp of synergism who are the most humble and kind believers you can imagine. You have a very distorted view and to high an opinion of Calvism. I know another on this board who would state that Calvinists don't lie but anyone else might (refering to other christians).
Take care to what you consider as precious that it not become your down fall.


I will let the matter rest with this post however since I know from experience we can all do this without thinking it through.

 

[Allan]

If that is true - then that would be where they fall into error. A proper understanding of faith as a gift of God to His elect resolves this error.

No, because man still has to believe. Even if God gave it man must do 'something' in order to be saved. That something that man must do is to believe.

Man must do.. in order to..

Regardless of if God gives him everything, salvation will not occur until man himself believes or places that faith in Him. Man has to do.. in order to be..

 

[Rippon]

You didn't hurt my feeling in the least. What you said was baseless and purposeful to put another down.

Rip: Maybe you're fibbing here just a bit?


I know many Calvinists that are very prideful and arrogent

Have you checked your 'p' and 'a' lately? ( PS. That's a-r-r-o-g-A-n-t )

 

[jdlongmire]

No, because man still has to believe. Even if God gave it man must do 'something' in order to be saved. That something that man must do is to believe.

Man must do.. in order to..

Regardless of if God gives him everything, salvation will not occur until man himself believes or places that faith in Him. Man has to do.. in order to be..

See, that is why you are a synergist.

You believe that ALL MEN have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY within THEMSELVES of THEIR OWN POWER to choose God for SALVATION. (CAPS for emphasis, not yelling)

Scripture does not teach this.

 

[jdlongmire]

For contrast:

The monergists believes that Man is incapable of choosing God, unless God chooses Man first, so salvation originates from and is entirely of God. Man has no reason to boast that he is "elected because I selected."

If God chooses Man, Man will choose God.

Salvation belongs to the Lord.

 

[swaimj]

Allan, you're doing a great job on these threads and I think open-minded readers can see the weakness in the arguments that the calvinists on this board are making. Hang in there! And I love the irony of this quote:

Allan - I understand that you have probably been influenced by post-modern thinking - that is - that truth is what you decide it is - but I want you to understand - in this case there are only 2 possibilities - 1 or 0, black or white.

God alone or God + something.

Here, the calvinist defends God's great soveriegnty while he simultaneously displays his ability to read your mind. Hmmm

 

[jdlongmire]

It is not mind reading to understand and point out cultural/philosophic influences.

 

[jdlongmire]

BTW, Skypair, while I certainly disagree with your theology and certain aspects of your online personality , I appreciate your willingness to honestly choose what you stand for based on your current understanding instead of trying to redefine and wiggle around the point. :thumbs:

 

[jdlongmire]

Allan, you're doing a great job on these threads and I think open-minded readers can see the weakness in the arguments that the calvinists on this board are making.

Hmm - instead of sniping, why not join in instead of making Allan do all the heavy lifting?

'cause it is a burden to defend synergism.

 

[Allan]

See, that is why you are a synergist.

You believe that ALL MEN have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY within THEMSELVES of THEIR OWN POWER to choose God for SALVATION. (CAPS for emphasis, not yelling)

Scripture does not teach this.

I was arguing the point OF Monergism weakness.. :laugh: Ok, that was funny.

Secondly, it does and has been a consistant teaching in the church since the early church and the Apostles
Oh well...

 

[jdlongmire]

Secondly, it does and has been a consistant teaching in the church since the early church and the Apostles
Oh well...

Does that mean you understand that you are a synergist? 'cause I am still not sure...:tear:

 

[swaimj]

It is not mind reading to understand and point out cultural/philosophic influences.

How do you know what has influenced Allan? It seems that he would either have to tell you, you have been spying on him, or you have the ability to read minds. I have argued with quite a few calvinists and I find it quite typical to be subjected to the kind of mind reading ability that you have claimed here. That's why I picked up on it.

As for heavy lifting, no thanks. I'll stay out of it. Out of over 2,000 posts on the BB, I imagine 1/3 to 1/2 have been on this topic on the old C/A thread. Feel free to search them out on the old threads and when you get through reading all that I wrote, perhaps you can say that you have read my mind as well! I have heard the arguments and I have made mine. At this point, and I mean this for myself, not for anyone else on either side, this topic falls under the category of "foolish arguments' and "senseless debates" which Paul advised Timothy to stay out of. I think you have to work you way through the issues and come to a conclusion, but once you do, stay humble and stay open minded, for "who has known the mind of the Lord?" "whose ways are past finding out".

 

[jdlongmire]

How do you know what has influenced Allan? It seems that he would either have to tell you, you have been spying on him, or you have the ability to read minds. I have argued with quite a few calvinists and I find it quite typical to be subjected to the kind of mind reading ability that you have claimed here. That's why I picked up on it.

Again - I can make deductions based on evidence. I could be wrong, but the evidence leads me to believe a certain thing.

As for heavy lifting, no thanks. I'll stay out of it. Out of over 2,000 posts on the BB, I imagine 1/3 to 1/2 have been on this topic on the old C/A thread. Feel free to search them out on the old threads and when you get through reading all that I wrote, perhaps you can say that you have read my mind as well! I have heard the arguments and I have made mine.

So...you are a synergist? Or are you only willing to interject without taking a stand? out of that many posts, one would think it'd be easy.

At this point, and I mean this for myself, not for anyone else on either side, this topic falls under the category of "foolish arguments' and "senseless debates" which Paul advised Timothy to stay out of.

And yet you did not...

However - look at the examples Paul uses for foolish and senseless - I believe it is mostly around ceremonial issues, not about core doctrine.

I think you have to work you way through the issues and come to a conclusion, but once you do, stay humble and stay open minded, for "who has known the mind of the Lord?" "whose ways are past finding out".

hmm - there are certain things that cannot be determined from Scripture and are a mystery. "Salvation belongs to the Lord" is not one of them and that truth belongs to us. (Deut 29:29)

 

[swaimj]

So...you are a synergist? Or are you only willing to interject without taking a stand? out of that many posts, one would think it'd be easy.

What, you've read my posts and you still don't know?