Uh, well, no. That tends not to be the case.
No, telling untruths is never a joke.
-
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
I just unblocked this one post to see if you might have something intelligent to say which might add the discussion. I was disappointed, but not surprised that you don't.
I can't speak for Reformed, but I block those who can't or won't engage in serious debate, not because I disagree with their theological positions. See Proverbs 26:4
You got it baby.. the age old arguement played out again and again.
Thank you
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.
.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?
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.
No answer will be forthcoming.
Synergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God with help from the person being regenerated.
.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?
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.
No answer will be forthcoming.
SIDEBAR ALERT: I have addressed this before, but I will comment on it again only because you mentioned it.
I participate on this board to sharpen my own understanding of Baptist theology and practice. As in other areas of life, we have freedom of association. To lesser or greater degrees we also have that in our family and church family relationships, although those relationships function differently and often have duties and obligations connected with them.
When a relationship deteriorates to a certain point it requires one or both parties to end it. I am referring to acquaintance-type relationships, not covenant relationships like marriage. Some relationships are like water and oil; they just do not mix well. It does not mean that either party is more at fault than the other, it just means that opinions and differences are so great that it makes regular interaction and communication difficult or impossible. Unfortunately, I have a number of those relationships on this board. No matter what we discuss we just cannot see eye-to-eye. The discussions invariably turn south and result in hurt or ill feelings. That is not healthy for either party. I am careful to state that I am not blaming others for this. I am quite sure I am the cause of many of these difficulties. I have strong opinions which are not always presented gracefully. However, the end result is that it is best for me and certain board members not to interact. It makes for a more profitable board experience for both parties. That is why I use the block/ignore feature. I know for a fact others use it on me, so the irony is not lost. I envy those members who can get along with anybody. I work hard at improving myself in this area, but it is very much a work in progress.
Last edited:
'The one who comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.' There is no question of anyone trusting in Christ for salvation and then being told, "I'm sorry, but God doesn't like the look of your face, so He hasn't credited your faith as righteousness."
This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all He has given Me [past tense] I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. God has elected a people in eternity past (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:2 etc.) and has given them to the Son to redeem. Not one of them will be lost, and none of them are subject to a Divine change of mind.
'And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.' The out working of this grace is through faith, which is in itself the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), and 'everyone' who believes (not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord!") will have everlasting life and there is no possibility of anyone being subject to review.
Today is your lucky day.
But your question is neither synergism nor monergism, but nonsense, which is why folk don't bother to answer it.Martin you can pretend the bible does not say what it says till the cows come home, God credits our faith as righteousness or not. Romans 4!! You can ignore Matthew 7. You can pretend John 6:37 is referring to changing mental outlook (trusting in Christ) but that is ... what was your word, oh nonsense. Coming to Me refers to a change in location because after coming, the person has arrived in Christ and will not be cast out.
What caused you to receive Jesus as Lord, yourself or God?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the problem is with who gets to phrase the definitions. The issue is generally with volition, that is, will, not with action, that is, works. It might be clearer to some of us what we are dealing with, if you can affirm monergism, if phrased thus:
Monergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God without any consent whatsoever from, even against the express will of the person being regenerated.
If you can affirm that, then I think I could affirm synergism, if defined thus:
Synergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God alone but with the consent of the person being regenerated.
Monergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God without any consent whatsoever from, even against the express will of the person being regenerated.
If you can affirm that, then I think I could affirm synergism, if defined thus:
Synergism teaches the work of regeneration is done by God alone but with the consent of the person being regenerated.
As a Monergist I will accept that definition of Monergism. There is no volition until after regeneration.
Your definition of Synergism? Try again.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
This is straight from the Monergism website:
"Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration."
Now compare to your definition:
"Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration."
Explain how these two differ please.
[add]
Lol, never mind, you're actually accepting the Monergism website's articulation. My mistake.
You ever hear that saying, "Keep your friends close but your enemies even closer"? Sure we've all had/have antagonists/opponents on this board that it's just best if we don't engage, but instead of putting them on ignore I simply ignore them, even if they're quoting me, most of the time.
That way I can still keep an eye on what they're up to and engage at my discretion. But, to each his own.FYI, most folks I'm apt to ignore it's on account of wordy/windy/lengthy posts that I simply don't have the time (or the will) to decipher where they're coming from.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
But my definition included human will.
Even though he misquoted me, kyredneck posted a definition very, very close to mine. It looks like your own definition of Synergism may be off. Perhaps because you do not like the right one?
Think the main difference would still be on what basis does God save us? We all agree its by the Cross of Christ, but do sinners decide to accept Jesus freely, or do just those whom God decided to get saved accept Jesus?
- Status