Monergists & Synergists: Divide or Unify?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So much for unifying monergists and synergists. The better practice is "you go to your church and I will go to mine".....done and done.:thumbs:

 

[Reformed]

So much for unifying monergists and synergists. The better practice is "you go to your church and I will go to mine".....done and done.:thumbs:

In the end that may be the wisest choice, although I do not like phrasing it like that. Those who are born again are brothers in Christ, whether they like to admit it or not. Because of doctrinal differences denominations were born. Separation is among many lines: Credobaptist vs. Paedobaptist; Cessationist vs. Continualist; Monergist vs. Synergist et. al. Christ's sheep are found in all groups even though each group thinks the other is in error. And, truth be told, some are in error. While it is never acceptable to be in error about God, it is the extent of the error that determines whether a person is truly a child of God. Those that deny Christ's virgin birth, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, His deity; they imperil their souls. Other errors, while significant, do not call into a question an individual's profession of faith. I would place the Monergist vs. Synergist issue into that category, with one caveat. It is a dangerous thing to willfully subvert God's sovereignty. I do believe that Synergism, born out of the Pelagian heresy, is a doctrine that views man as cooperating with God in salvation. I can try to say it nicely, but there is no other way of saying it if I am going to be honest. I believe most Synergists never give much thought to the "cooperating with God" part. They will tout the free will of the individual and leave it there. It is when an individual actually embraces the Pelagian roots of Synergism that my concern increases exponentially. It leads to no good thing. Mercifully most Synergists do not go that far.

 

[Iconoclast]

And right on cue you once again prove my point. :thumbsup: Tony already seen your accusations against those who reject TULIP. You have been very faithful at reiterating it over and over for the board to see. But as I said brother, you are being faithful to Calvinism and telling it like Calvinism believes. Others here don't like to be so truthful and blunt as you do. (Notice how no other Calvinist disagrees with your post? No belief in TULIP = no sheep. Everyone sees your post brother, it's not just me :smilewinkgrin: )

The only thing that gets repeated is your twisting of words, either from a lack of comprehension, or the fact that you are just a disruptive troublemaker.
You do not want to work through the verses at all as it shows your lack of any theological base.
Pt does not agree for now, but he at least seeks to engage the issue head on. Many who say they are non cals but engage the discussion study themselves into a new position. Others go on in error and miss the truth ,failing to embrace of love of the truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In the end that may be the wisest choice, although I do not like phrasing it like that. Those who are born again are brothers in Christ, whether they like to admit it or not. Because of doctrinal differences denominations were born. Separation is among many lines: Credobaptist vs. Paedobaptist; Cessationist vs. Continualist; Monergist vs. Synergist et. al. Christ's sheep are found in all groups even though each group thinks the other is in error. And, truth be told, some are in error. While it is never acceptable to be in error about God, it is the extent of the error that determines whether a person is truly a child of God. Those that deny Christ's virgin birth, His sacrificial death, His resurrection, His deity; they imperil their souls. Other errors, while significant, do not call into a question an individual's profession of faith. I would place the Monergist vs. Synergist issue into that category, with one caveat. It is a dangerous thing to willfully subvert God's sovereignty. I do believe that Synergism, born out of the Pelagian heresy, is a doctrine that views man as cooperating with God in salvation. I can try to say it nicely, but there is no other way of saying it if I am going to be honest. I believe most Synergists never give much thought to the "cooperating with God" part. They will tout the free will of the individual and leave it there. It is when an individual actually embraces the Pelagian roots of Synergism that my concern increases exponentially. It leads to no good thing. Mercifully most Synergists do not go that far.

Yep....I'm with ya all the way on this one. And if my recent experience with certain Synergist pastors not evening returning a sincere call of inquiry because I'm a 5P Amil, then I have to conclude they don't want us in their churches either. But that's OK by me....I don't need to rock the boat.

 

[Iconoclast]

So much for unifying monergists and synergists. The better practice is "you go to your church and I will go to mine".....done and done.:thumbs:

Some have a teachable spirit and can and do learn. Others have an agenda and function as gainsayers,,,,Look at this directive to elders in titus 1...it shows the characteristics of the gainsayer;

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

 

[Reformed]

Yep....I'm with ya all the way on this one. And if my recent experience with certain Synergist pastors not evening returning a sincere call of inquiry because I'm a 5P Amil, then I have to conclude they don't want us in their churches either. But that's OK by me....I don't need to rock the boat.

EWF, I do appreciate your honesty, but I cannot help but scratch my head and wonder why you lead with your Monergism. I mean, no, you do not want to be dishonest or mislead. But if you are just looking for a church home, your personal feelings on the doctrines of grace are not that critical. Unless, of course, you plan to join a local church and try to change it.

As a minister of the Gospel, here is what I would recommend:

1. Visit some local churches and evaluate whether they display the love of Christ and if the teaching from the pulpit is biblical.

2. Pick one of those churches and attend for a while.

3. In person, schedule a time to visit with the pastor and/or elders.

4. Let them know how much you enjoy the church and you would be interested in joining. Be upfront with them and say that you do have some doctrinal differences, but it is not your intention to be subversive and try to change the church. I would think a godly pastor would appreciate that type of honest dialog.

5. Pray and see how God leads.

If someone called me or visited my church and the first thing they said to me was, "I am [insert doctrinal position]" I would wonder about their agenda. We have more than a few Synergists in our church (believe it or not), because being a Monergist is not a requirement for membership. I am not threatened by their Synergistic theology. They know what the church believes. They also know we are quite capable of dealing with any issues that arise from someone who tries to subvert what our church believes. Some of them have changed their views as they allowed themselves to be taught from the Word.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Listen Brothers, I visited with a very Orthodox Lutheran Church in my community who desired that I become a member only I would have to change my belief system, so I declined. The Pastor still calls & writes me but I cannot trade in what I consider a precious gift (of DoG theological understanding) for a Lutheran one. I just couldn't see myself adapting to Piedo (sic) baptism, Universal atonement, Luther's Small Catechism, a sacramental grace system, whatever. Now I liked these people, I never questioned the serenity of their salvation----but its not for me. I don't see allot of the traditions they hold to as necessary or biblical but I don't question these folks being Christians....a little odd maybe but they are probably saying the same about me.

 

[Reformed]

Listen Brothers, I visited with a very Orthodox Lutheran Church in my community who desired that I become a member only I would have to change my belief system, so I declined. The Pastor still calls & writes me but I cannot trade in what I consider a precious gift (of DoG theological understanding) for a Lutheran one. I just couldn't see myself adapting to Piedo (sic) baptism, Universal atonement, Luther's Small Catechism, a sacramental grace system, whatever. Now I liked these people, I never questioned the serenity of their salvation----but its not for me. I don't see allot of the traditions they hold to as necessary or biblical but I don't question these folks being Christians....a little odd maybe but they are probably saying the same about me.

You went to a Lutheran church. What do you expect?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF, I do appreciate your honesty, but I cannot help but scratch my head and wonder why you lead with your Monergism. I mean, no, you do not want to be dishonest or mislead. But if you are just looking for a church home, your personal feelings on the doctrines of grace are not that critical. Unless, of course, you plan join a local church and try to change it.

As a minister of the Gospel, here is what I would recommend:

1. Visit some local churches and evaluate whether they display the love of Christ and if the teaching from the pulpit is biblical.

2. Pick one of those churches and attend for a while.

3. In person, schedule a time to visit with the pastor and/or elders.

4. Let them know how much you enjoy the church and you would be interested in joining. Be upfront with them and say that you do have some doctrinal differences, but it is not your intention to be subversive and try to change the church. I would think a godly pastor would appreciate that type of honest dialog.

5. Pray and see how God leads.

If someone called me or visited my church and the first thing they said to me was, "I am [insert doctrinal position]" I would wonder about their agenda. We have more than a few Synergists in our church (believe it or not), because being a Monergist is not a requirement for membership. I am not threatened by their Synergistic theology. They know what the church believes. They also know we are quite capable of dealing with any issues that arise from someone who tries to subvert what our church believes. Some of them have changed their views as they allowed themselves to be taught from the Word.

Been there done that. What I want most is a higher level of learning .....to be fed and these guys are on two different levels (1) very basic (2) I need to change you. Big waste of time cause (1) dont waste my time (2) I aint changing my beliefs for no man....and lastly get busy and theologically feed me. And since there is no higher church than these superficial ones then I will pass. Oh and BTW, Ive already been to them already. I also have one last criterion..... that they be fairly local (in the community) ....see I can sit & listen to broadcast messages via airwaves & sermons & get fed....but I want that same nourishment to penetrate into my community---they sorely need it.

Addendum: Maybe that last one is a call to action by someone crying out in the desert "LOL" Yea, Im taulkin ta you! :

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You went to a Lutheran church. What do you expect?

I went to every church within a 30 mile radius. These guys at least read & studied the bible.

 

[PreachTony]

Where do you get this from?show a quote.

Again if you depict God in this way...show a quote.

Consider simply the parable of the gates. There is a broad gate that leads to damnation, and many enter in at that gate. There is a narrow gate leading to eternal life that only a few enter in at. This is not to say that the "few" is not a vastly large number, but it is smaller than the number entering into damnation. Per your doctrine, God enable the Elect to attain salvation through grace. This, ostensibly, is the love of God. What is God's emotion to those He created but chose instead to damn? What is His emotion toward those that Calvin himself said God illumined only for a time, and then turned over to greater blindness because of their unwillingness?

Man is responsible to repent and believe the gospel. It sounds like you want to dictate to God what you think He should do, rather than trust God that he is doing the exact right thing.

We both agree that man is responsible to repent. But Brother C1 pointed out elsewhere that the spirit/will/desire to repent is a gift from God, ergo God is the one who enables/executes repentance within a man. Following that logic, if man does not repent, it is because God did not move him to repent. If God does not move or enable a man to repent, seeing as only God can allow that man to repent, then how does it make any sense, following scripture, for God to hold man accountable for not doing what he was never allowed to do? Just look at the scriptures. You will see Jesus Himself lamenting over Jerusalem being unwilling to turn to Him. If the truth was that God never enabled them to turn, then why would Jesus speak so?

He does not have to does He?

No. I will agree with John Piper on one sentiment. No matter what happens, He is God and I am just a man. I have no standing whatsoever to rail against the Almighty.

More than the stars of the heaven or the sand on the seashore. Does that sound like a select few to you? Where do you get this stuff???

Gen15 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 22:17

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Could you explain how this is a select few? If you cannot...perhaps you should not repeat such an error. If you want to dispute the teaching fine...but try and DO SO BIBLICALLY:thumbs:

Again, as I explained above, consider the parable of the gate. I will admit that the "select few" is a great number. John referred to them as a innumerable multitude. That does not change the fact that it is a smaller number than those entering into damnation.

show how God keeps men from salvation. Where does ho do this?

Again, as noted above, it is the fact that your doctrine teaches that God regenerates and then inexorably and irresistibly calls men unto salvation. Since this call cannot be resisted you cannot reasonably say that man had any choice in the matter. Conversely, if God never gives regeneration and the call to man, then man is effectively kept from salvation by virtue of God withholding salvation from him.

then again...if truth comes your way would that be bad?
This blame God for mans sin theology is unstable.

I'm not blaming God for man's sins. I don't even account God as the originator of Sin, as some folks do. I just think it's not in line with scripture to hold to the theology that you guys do. Then again, we basically knew our theological and doctrinal differences were bordering on irreconcilable. As I said elsewhere, I would never try to say that someone who doesn't hold to my theological bend is not one of His sheep, nor would I say that God has not properly revealed things to them yet.

 

[PreachTony]

The only thing that gets repeated is your twisting of words, either from a lack of comprehension, or the fact that you are just a disruptive troublemaker.
You do not want to work through the verses at all as it shows your lack of any theological base.
Pt does not agree for now, but he at least seeks to engage the issue head on. Many who say they are non cals but engage the discussion study themselves into a new position. Others go on in error and miss the truth ,failing to embrace of love of the truth.

While I absolutely love the opportunity we have to discuss and debate the topic, and even though I get heated I hope you all understand that I harbor no ill will toward anyone on this board, it is statements like the one bolded above that bother me.

I might disagree with your stance, but I would not deign to say that someone who disagrees with me is "go[ing] on in error" and "failing to embrace of love of the truth." You are basically saying at that point that the gospel message I preach, which I have always striven to base in scripture, is not done in "love of the truth." Even if you stood and preached, so long as you preached Jesus crucified, resurrected, and ascended, I would never say you were outside the love of the truth.

 

[steaver]

I might disagree with your stance, but I would not deign to say that someone who disagrees with me is "go[ing] on in error" and "failing to embrace of love of the truth." You are basically saying at that point that the gospel message I preach, which I have always striven to base in scripture, is not done in "love of the truth." Even if you stood and preached, so long as you preached Jesus crucified, resurrected, and ascended, I would never say you were outside the love of the truth.

But you are not a Calvinist brother. If you shall ever become one, then you too shall look down your nose at us stiff necked and unlearned goats.

You try to have reasonable debate, but you are not dealing with a theology which has room for brotherly love towards those who do not comply. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[steaver]

The only thing that gets repeated is your twisting of words, either from a lack of comprehension, or the fact that you are just a disruptive troublemaker.

Please bring forth a post from me where I twisted, changed, altered, clipped or snipped anything you posted. I always quoted you word for word, context for context, FULL quote for FULL quote. You can't, so nobody is going to wait and see if you step up and back up your accusation. Once again, you just make yourself look silly.

 

[Iconoclast]

But you are not a Calvinist brother. If you shall ever become one, then you too shall look down your nose at us stiff necked and unlearned goats.

You try to have reasonable debate, but you are not dealing with a theology which has room for brotherly love towards those who do not comply. :smilewinkgrin:

PT is a Calvinist.the more he dialogues and speaks back and forth you can see that he agrees with most of the things that are presented to him from the scripture.
in post about 97 I explain my thoughts on this and I think you'll see that it gets proven over and over on this board.

 

[Iconoclast]

Please bring forth a post from me where I twisted, changed, altered, clipped or snipped anything you posted. I always quoted you word for word, context for context, FULL quote for FULL quote. You can't, so nobody is going to wait and see if you step up and back up your accusation. Once again, you just make yourself look silly.

I've already done that I'm Shown where you've taken something I did say but out of sequence and no one is going to remember the question that was asked ahead of time and what the answer was
you try to redefine it to make it slander me and my view

 

[Reformed]

But you are not a Calvinist brother. If you shall ever become one, then you too shall look down your nose at us stiff necked and unlearned goats.

I did not know you are a goat. Hurrah! At least we can milk you can make some cheese.

 

[TCassidy]

I have been watching this thread for 3 days and have observed a few answers to the 5 questions, some serious and honest discussion and a lot of twisting, dancing, dodging, and the usual mindless drivel associated with some BB regulars. So, here is my contribution.

1. Is it appropriate for Christians to divide over this issue?

Not necessarily. If the synergistic view is vigorously proclaimed and defended, and the monergistic view is condemned and mocked, then, yes, separation would be necessary. The Truth of God's word cannot be compromised. But if the teaching/preaching leadership does not make an issue of it then division is not necessary.

2. Does the debate effect one's view of the Gospel and salvation?

It can, but it does not have to. The gospel can be preached without mentioning either synergism or monergism.

3. If so, is that a minor or major issue?

If the insistence on synergism is so vociferous that the Truth is compromised it would be a major issue.

4. If someone belongs to a church that holds to a different view, should that person advocate for their view and cause dissension in the church?

It is possible to advocate monergism without causing dissension in the local body. If the people on both sides are mature enough to disagree without being disagreeable much good can come from such advocacy.

5. If the issue does come up in real life, should we be charitable in our behavior even if we disagree?

Charitable in all things.

I am retired and a member of a Baptist church in the community in which I retired. The church has both monergists and synergists in its membership and on the pastoral staff. Prior to joining I met with the pastor who does not hold either position with great conviction but admits he believes parts of both views and is not sure of the finer points of either position.

I told him that even though I was a thorough going monergist (biblicist) I considered the fact that a person was in Christ was much more important than his understanding the minutia of how he got there.

I agree that all believers are monergists. Many of them just don't know it yet. But eventually all will know and understand monergism, either in this life or in the next.

Several years ago my wife and I spent several days on the road. Every morning we woke up in a different motel room in a different city. One morning I woke up, looked around, and thought, "Where am I and how did I get here?" Then I turned on the light and recognized where I was and understood how I got there. Synergists are like that. One day the light will come on and they will know not only where they are, in Christ, but will be illuminated by the indwelling Holy Spirit as He leads them into all truth to understand how they got there.

Until then, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Love then. Accept them. Attempt to teach them. And forgive them when they reject the truth out of fear, peer pressure, or confusion.

We all grow at different rates. Some of us have excelled in one area but have been slow to grow in others. And vice versa.

 

[steaver]

I've already done that I'm Shown where you've taken something I did say but out of sequence and no one is going to remember the question that was asked ahead of time and what the answer was
you try to redefine it to make it slander me and my view

Never, not once! I posted quote for quote, never out of sequence. And of course you know this so you are intentionally lying. And surely you know the whole board knows as well.

 

[steaver]

I agree that all believers are monergists. Many of them just don't know it yet. But eventually all will know and understand monergism, either in this life or in the next.

Oh the beauty of Calvinism :sleep: