Monergism vs. Synergism

[Winman]

Depends on your definition of Original Sin and your use of the analogy regarding 'death.' I'm fine with the 'again' application above for the same reasons you are, but I can still affirm Original Sin in that we are all born in need of a savior.

Even Adam was made with a need for Christ...the law simply revealed that truth.

Adam did not need a saviour until AFTER he sinned, Jesus came to save us from our SINS, not our nature.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The point is, people just assume doctrine like Original Sin is true, and do not actually look at the words of scripture. Jesus himself said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN, if we are born dead in sin then no man could ever be said to be alive again.

As you said earlier, Jesus came to reconcile us to God. You have to have had a previous relationship with God to be reconciled to him.

Peter said we are now RETURNED to the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls. You cannot return someplace you have never been.

Words have meaning, many folks seem oblivious to the words of scripture.

 

[MB]

The "How we label ourselves" thread resulted in a lot of good material for further discussion. As a believer in the Doctrines of Grace I prefer not to be called a Calvinist; mainly because Calvin believed in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology. However I cannot deny that Calvinism is the most commonly used term to describe all who hold to the Reformed view of soteriology. Arminianism is the most commonly used term to describe those who do not hold to the Reformed view of soteriology. But like Calvinism it also carries with it unwanted connections like being able to fall from grace.

Monergism and Synergism are two terms that get to the core of the belief systems most commonly expressed on this board. A good textbook definition for both is given by Donald McKim's dictionary of theological terms. Monergism is "the view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians." Synergism is described as "working together in the gospel. Theologically the term is used for views of salvation, particularly Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, where the human will cooperates with the divine will in achieving salvation."

One of the difficulties that this thread faces is getting those who hold to Synergism to actually admit that they do. I believe that everyone who describes themselves as "non-Cal" is a Synergist whether they like the term or not. To be a Synergist, and deny it all at the same time, one must maintain a state of cognitive dissonance when it comes to understanding the fall of man and the effect of sin upon the individual. In other words a person must deny both total depravity and total inability. Total depravity: "that sinfulness pervades all areas of life or the totality of human existence" (Isa. 55:8; Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:1). Total inability: "because of their sinfulness, humans are not able to perform any action that will lead to their salvation. God must take the initiative to give the gift of faith and repentance" (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph 1:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).

If man is not totally fallen (depraved) in his nature, and not totally unable to take positive action towards God, then it can be said that man brings something to the table during justification. Man is not spiritually bankrupt. His balance may be low, but there is something still in the bank; some spiritual currency that he can use to effect his salvation. That spiritual currency is a works-based "faith." God reaches out to the sinner, through the Gospel, with the gift of eternal life, and man reaches back and accepts God's gift. Many "non-Cals" will agree with that statement, not realizing that is the Synergist view. They are caught with their hands in the cookie jar while at the same time claiming they were not trying to take any cookies! Synergists claim that God is sovereign in salvation, but not completely sovereign. I mean, how could He be? Let me share an anecdote to make my point.

When I was a student at Word of Life, a popular professor explained the Synergist view of salvation this way: "The Holy Spirit will lead the sinner to the lake of salvation, but He won't make them drink. God will not violate the sinner's free will. God offers and man has to accept." If if were to tell that professor he was advocating Synergism he would emphatically deny it. He would say that God is completely sovereign in salvation, but the technical aspects of his theology belied his claim.

The good part about all this is that most of those who hold to a synergistic view of soteriology deny it at the same time. This is a happy inconsistency that I am thankful for. They understand that Jesus saves. They deny works in salvation, even if they are so invested in their Synergism that they can't possibly let it go. After all, for many of them to embrace Monergism (aka "Calvinism") would be unthinkable! So, they keep to their happy inconsistency for which I am grateful.

This post is just plain pitiful. You should be ashamed of your self for being so hateful of those who give you truth.
MB

 

[OldRegular]

Folks just don't get it, the scriptures do not support Original Sin.

So did Adam transgress the Commandment of God or not? I believe Scripture tells us he did, unless you want to throw out Adam and Eve and Genesis. But that creates a problem because Jesus commended the marriage of the first couple!

 

[Winman]

So did Adam transgress the Commandment of God or not? I believe Scripture tells us he did, unless you want to throw out Adam and Eve and Genesis. But that creates a problem because Jesus commended the marriage of the first couple!

What is this, a joke? Is this the best you can do?

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes but Dabuccy (spelling) tops them both. I just happen to be listing to Ludwig's Symphony No. 5 in C minor/ NY Philharmonic :godisgood:

Debusey ( I think)

BTW, Skan responded much more elegantly then I ever could on describing the differences we have regarding "total inability". I can only wish I were so theologically articulate.

Hope you and the family are doing well this Christmas Season.

Blessings

 

[The Archangel]

Yes but Dabuccy (spelling) tops them both. I just happen to be listing to Ludwig's Symphony No. 5 in C minor/ NY Philharmonic :godisgood:

Debusey ( I think)

It would be Debussy, as in Claude Debussy.

And, one big "thumbs-up" for the NY Philharmonic. One of my trumpet teachers was the principal trumpet player there. I follow that orchestra like a baseball team.

As far as composers go...let me say a good healthy dose of the British composer Ralph Vaughan Williams is never a bad thing (his first name is pronounced "Raif"). The London Symphony Orchestra has many fine recordings of his symphonies and other works--highly recommended.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[SovereignMercy]

Yeah, I think those people were the ones who had already believed based on Paul's preaching the first time he spoke there. So, when what they initially believed was confirmed they were excited.

Some more general eisegesis my Mr. humble...

 

[Herald]

Also, can you define 'works' for us so that we know that you are able to draw the distinction that I clearly laid out in my post? Thanks

Works is anything, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g, that man must do, independent of or in cooperation with God, in order to be saved. If man is completely and utterly fallen in his nature (which he is: Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1), then he lacks both the desire and ability to exercise faith. To believe otherwise is to say that man is not completely sinful. If man is not completely sinful then Christ did not need to die. Synergism puts God and man in the front seat with both hands on the wheel. That is pure, unadulterated error.

 

[Herald]

Those holding to "salvation 100% of the Lord' would say that we are born into original Sin, are spiritually dead, saved by the Sovereign Will of God by Election unto Eternal life, that even faith he gives us...

Correct. Faith is as much the gift of God as is salvation (Eph. 2:8, 9).

 

[Revmitchell]

Correct. Faith is as much the gift of God as is salvation (Eph. 2:8, 9).

Faith is not the object of the gift in this passage. In Romans 3:24 we see that the gift is grace and faith is not listed as part of the gift. Romans 5:15 is as well. No passage in scripture shows the gift as being faith but always grace.

 

[Winman]

Calvinists are so messed up, they even have themselves confused. Faith is not a work, faith is always contrasted to works in scripture, faith is the opposite of work, it is a rest.

If someone tells me something and I believe them, how is that a work? What work? God promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations and Abraham believed it. How is that a work, what action did he perform?

If God gave you faith it would defeat the whole point of giving a promise. God gives a promise, if we believe he delivers on that promise. It is God proving himself to us, we do nothing but sit back and watch God deliver.

Psa 24:14 Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD.

The problem with Calvinism is that it has corrupted the word of God and the definitions of words in scripture. Faith is not a work, but there are works that show faith.

Say you are in a theater and someone shouts "Fire!". It is easy to know who believed, they will run for the exits. Running to the exit is a work, but faith existed in the mind first, and this faith prompted the person to run for the exit, but faith itself is not a work, it is simply believing someone else.

The scriptures say "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". This is a promise from God, you either believe it or you do not. If you believe it you will call on Jesus to save you. Yes, calling is a work, but faith existed in the mind and heart first, if you did not believe you would not call to Jesus.

Calvinism is foolish. God said if you call on Jesus to save you that he will. You can call it a work all you want, I called on Jesus to save me and I am saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Works is anything, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g, that man must do, independent of or in cooperation with God, in order to be saved.

By that definition, then even Calvinists must affirm we are saved by Grace through works, because don't you affirm that man must believe before being saved? Granted, that faith may flow effectually from a regenerated heart, it is still 'anything' that man must do.

If man is completely and utterly fallen in his nature (which he is: Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1), then he lacks both the desire and ability to exercise faith.

True, apart from the powerful work of the Holy Spirit we wouldn't be enabled or willing, but the Holy Spirit by the means of the powerful Gospel appeal enables us by (1) informing us of our need and His solution and (2) appealing for us to respond to his provision of reconciliation. Since we are held responsible for that response to his appeal there is no reason to presume we are not enabled a response.

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists are so messed up, they even have themselves confused. Faith is not a work, faith is always contrasted to works in scripture, faith is the opposite of work, it is a rest.

I like that. Good stuff!

 

[Herald]

Faith is not the object of the gift in this passage. In Romans 3:24 we see that the gift is grace and faith is not listed as part of the gift. Romans 5:15 is as well. No passage in scripture shows the gift as being faith but always grace.

John Piper writes (about saving faith):

Meditation on Romans[/I]]This is exactly the same aim of God mentioned in Ephesians 2:8-9 where Paul stresses that saving faith is a gift: "By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one may boast" (emphasis added). Faith is a gift from God, so that no one may boast. Or, as Romans 12:3 says, so that we will not think too highly of ourselves. The last bastion of pride is the belief that we are the originators of our faith.

In order to remain honest in this debate I will state that there is a vigorous debate, even in Reformed circles, about whether the exegesis of Eph. 2:8, 9 lends itself to faith being the gift of God along with grace and salvation. There are good men on both sides of the debate.

I think a better case can be made that faith is a gift of God when looking at it from the total depravity, total inability perspective. If man is completely fallen, and completely unable, then he does not possess faith of any kind. His dead in his trespasses and sin (nekros = corpse). How can the thing that is dead make itself undead? It can't. That transformation must take place for something (or someone) outside of himself.

 

[Herald]

By that definition, then even Calvinists must affirm we are saved by Grace through works, because don't you affirm that man must believe before being saved? Granted, that faith may flow effectually from a regenerated heart, it is still 'anything' that man must do.

Faith is given to man at regeneration. Man then exercises that faith (believes = same Greek word). Man could never believe until regenerated, so no, it is not the same as the synergist view.

True, apart from the powerful work of the Holy Spirit we wouldn't be enabled or willing, but the Holy Spirit by the means of the powerful Gospel appeal enables us by (1) informing us of our need and His solution and (2) appealing for us to respond to his provision of reconciliation. Since we are held responsible for that response to his appeal there is no reason to presume we are not enabled a response.

That's not a bad answer. Really. It's off track by just a bit. Once the Holy Spirit acts, He does so through regeneration. He doesn't enlighten the mind/heart giving man the ability to say yes or no. Once the Holy Spirit regenerates 2 Cor. 5:17 becomes a reality. The person regenerated is now changed in less than the blink of an eye. They now move forward to belief.

 

[Herald]

I like that. Good stuff!

Faith is never a work. What the Synergist misconstrues as faith is a work. But then again, I praise God for that happy inconsistency.

 

[Skandelon]

Man then exercises that faith

So that 'exercise' is not consider 'a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g?' Forgive me, but the word 'exercise' sounds like a lot more WORK than even believing does.

I'm trying to get you to admit that faith isn't a work because it doesn't merit anything. A WORK as in 'works based salvation' is in reference to a 'meritorious work,' not a response that God credits as righteousness because of His Grace.

That's not a bad answer. Really. It's off track by just a bit. Once the Holy Spirit acts, He does so through regeneration.

Yet the bible says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation and that we are born again through his word.

He doesn't enlighten the mind/heart giving man the ability to say yes or no. Once the Holy Spirit regenerates 2 Cor. 5:17 becomes a reality. The person regenerated is now changed in less than the blink of an eye. They now move forward to belief.

So you think one must be given life in order to believe, yet scripture clearly teaches that life comes through faith.

 

[Skandelon]

Faith is never a work. What the Synergist misconstrues as faith is a work.

Faith is the same for both of us. We both believe God's divine aid is needed for us to have it. We both believe its a gifted ability..i.e. must be enabled. We simply disagree as to the irresistibly of the means God grants this ability. Must a gift be irresistibly applied for the giver to get full credit for giving it?

But then again, I praise God for that happy inconsistency.

I praise God for some "PERCEIVED" Calvinistic inconsistencies too, so I understand.

 

[OldRegular]

Faith is given to man at regeneration. Man then exercises that faith (believes = same Greek word). Man could never believe until regenerated, so no, it is not the same as the synergist view.

This is my position and understanding of Ephesians 2:1-10.

 

[OldRegular]

What is this, a joke? Is this the best you can do?

It is a simple question; just answer it.