God offers a gift (Romans 6:23) Gifts can be received or rejected. Since when is the receiving of the gift also part of the giving. Just because one receives a gift does not mean they also took part in the giving of the gift.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
- Status
God offers a gift (Romans 6:23) Gifts can be received or rejected. Since when is the receiving of the gift also part of the giving. Just because one receives a gift does not mean they also took part in the giving of the gift.
Lame.
So of your own free will YOU CHOSE to receive the gift, right?
YOU could have, of your own free will, chose to reject the gift, right?
Mitch, you are a synergist whether you admit it or not.
Agreed. Our Free will no more saves us than someone's free will decision to allow a doctor to perform a life saving operation does. The doctor there does all the saving, even though you allowed him to save you, so the same Jesus Christ does all the saving, even though we have to turn to him and trust him to save us by an act of our will.
So we have God still impotent to save any of us until we allow Him to do that, correct?
Oh, I finally understand what is happening. There are some BB members whose posts I choose not to see. I forgot that and it was making the conversation seem out of sync. All is well.
The issue is not whether free will saves. Of course, it does not. The issue is whether the terms in the OP are accurate. Those on the free will side believe that God will not violate the free will of the creature. I have never heard one person on the free will side who disagrees with that summation. They may reword it to fit their understanding, but they all agree with it. Under the free will schema, the individual must choose to believe, and choose from his own free will. Salvation is a cooperative effort. God does His part and the individual does his. That is why it is called Synergism.
I did not bother to read the two pages of following posts, I am addressing the opening post.
Monergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by the God without any help from the person being regenerated.
Synergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God with help from the person being regenerated.
But these definitions do not define exactly what is included in "the work of regeneration." The actual issue is whether God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, or by an unconditional election. If God chooses those who believe fully in Christ (those whose faith God credits as righteousness) is that a monergistic election or a synergistic election. If a person professes Christ, but God does not credit their faith as righteousness, and therefore does not choose him/her for salvation, is that monergism or synergism?
Ephesians 1:11
Felipe Rios
Member
AMENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. The Calvinist thinks that you and I are going to boast of our salvation simply because we are not Calvinists. What a joke right?
Felipe, this Monergist does not believe that, nor was that the intent of this thread. When I was a Synergist I never boasted about my salvation. However, when I finally looked at where my theology led me, I could see where a cogent argument could be made that I had something to do with my salvation. I did not start this thread to change anyone's mind. I started it to define the belief systems of both sides. I knew that certain people would get their knickers in a twist about it, and that is OK. Sometimes debate results in sparks. Some people will get past the sparks and wrestle with the issue. Others will just make a lot of noise and stick their fingers in the ears. I cannot help that. I try to stick to the issue.
A former professor of mine was honest enough to state that he is a Synergist. We have had some lively discussions over the years. Neither one of us has displayed any inkling of changing our views. However, I do have to commend him for his honesty and candor. He has never been a moving target in his arguments. Coming from the Synergist side, he is a distinct minority.
You've hit on something there. Trying to debate an issue here is impossible because the "other side" doesn't deal with the OP, rather flits from one subject to another, and to makes matters far worse, does not own a position, causing any and all debate to essentially reinvent the wheel.
You've done a good deed in posting this thread, but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
And that is why I do not grant them their diversion tactics. Oh, they can use them; I just do not play their game. They are the ones I described as "sticking their fingers in their ears". Hear no evil, see no evil sort of thing. The thing that gives me hope is that there are many people who read these threads but never participate in them. I like to think that God's word is working in their hearts.
I am Jersey tough. They can wear themselves out. LOL
We are on the same page. I often start and post in threads for the sake of the lurkers.
And what if one of our Synergist opponents is honest enough to take claim of that description? They probably think they are going to be attacked. I can only speak for myself; but no, I will not attack them. I will thank them for their honesty. Yes. I will argue the merits (or lack thereof) of their belief system. I will challenge them as I hope they will challenge me.
The whole tone of the subthread would likely change for the better if a semi-Pelagian would admit he is a. . . semi-Pelagian.
Last edited:
I really must chuckle at the chattering between these two, about what a struggle it is to debate with the other camp, the other camp is "sticking their fingers in their ears," etc., when they are two of the most likely to mention having "blocked" other posters.
- Status