Monergism and Synergism

[jdlongmire]

Anybody want to take a shot at post #55?

 

[jdlongmire]

I think all of this is really getting down to semantics. The point I have sought to make is the point made by Paul in Romans. Man MUST believe and He MUST confess Christ. Man's salvation is conditioned upon these responses. It seems that you position speaks a language that denies this, then agrees with it when confronted and modifies its language.

Not quite - those conditioned responses originate from somewhere and how you answer that question determines whether you are a monergist or synergist.

Are you ready to take a stand?

 

[swaimj]

I take my stand on Romans 10:9 & 10. I'll pass on your false dichotomies. And with that, I think I have made my point. Didn't expect to convince you of anything JD. Others who read this thread can weigh the arguments for themselves. You may have the last word if you like, JD

 

[Jarthur001]

I have watched this thread with interest, posting little for me.

What is so interesting is those that reject the idea of monergism and have no problem say so, also refuse to admit they are synergist. There is no 3rd choice. Nor has another choice been brought forth to this point. I can understand not wanting to be called a synergist when you are a Baptist. But I do not understand why people don't like about God being in control?

The thought of God being in control of my salvation thrills me, for if it was up to me and my power I would fail

Thank you God for saving me from my will and sin.

 

[skypair]

jdl,

how is one person, all other salvific elements being equal, able to focus their faith to the proper object and the other not?

Is it:
a. Something they just "naturally" are able to do?
b. chance/luck?
c. highly developed spiritual/mental ability?
d. effectuated by God through the Holy Spirit?
e. a mystery?

We are naturally able to make choices. We make them all the time. Sometimes they are good choices and sometimes bad. And here is something that demonstrates this truth --- every good thing, including the goodnesses of the unsaved, is a demonstration that some of God's truth is understood by men. Fairness, justice, unselfishness, etc. Without some spiritual understanding of God, there would be no good in the world and then Calvinists might have a case 1) that nobody would be saved and 2) that God has to act monergistically. But that is just not the case.

It is knowing and being known by God through Christ (Gal. 4:9; 1 Cor. 13:12).

This would seem to say that we are not even on "God's radar screen" unless we have trusted in Christ already. I agree with that. But how could "God unite us to Christ" if He doesn't even know us?? It must be the other way around, right? Christ unites us to God because we believe and trust in Him.

BTW, Do YOU take communion willingly or is it "rammed down your throat" by God? What about salvation, then?

skypair

 

[skypair]

What is so interesting is those that reject the idea of monergism and have no problem say so, also refuse to admit they are synergist.

That's not so. I voted 'synergist' as you define it. I think most are revolted at your definition, though.

The thought of God being in control of my salvation thrills me, for if it was up to me and my power I would fail.

Is that to say that you have not chosen Christ? Does it thrill you to be totally uncommitted yourself and to have God do everything for you?

skypair