Salvation is Conditional, but We May Not Boast

[Sapper Woody]

Both Monergism and Synergism are historically accurate terms used to describe two theories of soteriology. There is nothing in those descriptions that can be rightly called a "slur."

A few weeks ago, I made the claim that if someone wanted to call me a synergist I was ok with the moniker, based upon what Calvinists (blanket statement representing those who believe in the DoG) say. After researching it, however, I have come to the conclusion that to call anyone who does not embrace the DoG a synergist is indeed intended as a slur. Especially given the fact that not everyone who is called synergist by your camp considers themselves a synergist. It is by its very nature a strawman.

No, that is not what we are saying. Nobody who believes in Particular Redemption would ever say "Not everyone can be like me." That is a slur! The whole point of Particular Redemption is that salvation is not about us! It is about Christ. And that there is NOTHING about us that is worthy of God's Redeeming Grace.

You have missed my entire point. I am not saying that anyone in your camp would say that. I am saying that the whole idea of saying someone outside your camp could boast is asinine.

I agree. Your post was not very well thought out. Why not discuss the issue instead of posting personal attacks?

Normally, I respect your opinion, TC. But this post demonstrates why it is impossible to discuss this with those in your camp. You have let your bias get in the way of clear thinking. In no way, shape, or form can calling someone's argument not very well thought out be a personal attack. If it is, then you did the same thing to me. So, either it is not a personal attack, or you are a hypocrite. Dealer's choice. Either way, I'm out. It's not worth my time to attempt to discuss anything here.

 

[Revmitchell]

A few weeks ago, I made the claim that if someone wanted to call me a synergist I was ok with the moniker, based upon what Calvinists (blanket statement representing those who believe in the DoG) say. After researching it, however, I have come to the conclusion that to call anyone who does not embrace the DoG a synergist is indeed intended as a slur. Especially given the fact that not everyone who is called synergist by your camp considers themselves a synergist. It is by its very nature a strawman.

yep it is a slur to be sure.

 

[InTheLight]

Normally, I respect your opinion, TC. But this post demonstrates why it is impossible to discuss this with those in your camp. You have let your bias get in the way of clear thinking. In no way, shape, or form can calling someone's argument not very well thought out be a personal attack. If it is, then you did the same thing to me. So, either it is not a personal attack, or you are a hypocrite. Dealer's choice. Either way, I'm out. It's not worth my time to attempt to discuss anything here.

It is frustrating. It doesn't help when the 'discussion' is started with posts like these:

Those who synergistically work with God to save their souls.
What is the percentage of your part? I've heard everything from 1% to 50%.

Did Jesus save you, or did He simply die and leave the rest up to you?

 

[TCassidy]

I have come to the conclusion that to call anyone who does not embrace the DoG a synergist is indeed intended as a slur.

Then you need to go back and study what synergism is. An historic descriptive theological term is not a slur.

I am saying that the whole idea of saying someone outside your camp could boast is asinine.

And this goes back to the question, "Why did you get saved and your neighbor didn't?" How are you different from your neighbor. What is different about YOU? (See the problem?)

In no way, shape, or form can calling someone's argument not very well thought out be a personal attack.

Accusing us of using accepted, historical, theological terms as a slur is certainly a personal attack.

So, either it is not a personal attack, or you are a hypocrite.

Or you have accused us of using an accepted, historical theological term as a slur.

You may want to rethink that.

 

[thatbrian]

I usually stay out of the Cal/Arm debates because of all the vitriol, but I saw this and had to comment.

Firstly, I'll go ahead and go along with your labels, even though studying them out recently I have come to realize that they are indeed a slur against any non-cal, rather than an actual descriptor.

Secondly, your claim actually made me laugh. You're actually claiming that the person who says, "Anyone can be saved as I was", has room to boast, but the person who says, "Not everyone can be like me", doesn't have room to boast?

That's not very well thought out.

You are wrong on all points, but I'll just address just two.

First, no Arminian (non-Cal) can say, "Anyone can be saved as I was". A synergist did something to aid in his salvation, and not all people do that something because not all people are saved. First, the most glaring problem with your logic is that you completely disregard billions of people who have lived and died without ever hearing the gospel. . .

Second, the person *saved* by God's grace was not saved because of anything good within him, but rather, just the opposite! He was saved, completely, because he had no ability to save himself. No Calvinists boast that God saved him and passed over another, he asks in wonder at God's mercy toward him, "why me, Lord?".

Am I to boast about this?: But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

A synergist (no, it's not a slur) always has grounds to boast. A monergist can only boast in his Savior. There is no potential for boasting when you did nothing. There are grounds for boasting when you did something. That can't be argued.

May I ask, why are you a Christian but your neighbor/co-worker/friend is not? What have you done that he/she has not?