Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Reformed. There are at least two "other" posters here you'll never be estranged from: Herald and MorseOp.

Ohhhhhhh....not cool!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Of course he does...he is 1/2 Italian and from Kearny NJ .... always keep your back to da wall. Bet he misses the Pecters rye bread, makes great toast with butter and eggs

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

Perhaps, but there is a lot in that question. I replied to this thread because of the labels offered and wanted to see if some clarification could be reached. What I see so far is that the two terms may present a false dichotomy. Why do I say this?

Well, you may have noticed that Reformed rejected my definition of what my position might be. But that is something we should want to avoid. That is why I only offered the rephrasing of Monergism without insisting on it. I do not want to simply put words in someone’s mouth or build a strawman argument, rather I am looking for some proverbial sharpening.

I think that first reply exposed a lot of the real issue, and I would like to see how that works out.

 

[Reformed]

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.

Certain comments are hard for me to ignore. I am working on my sanctification on those areas but I am not there yet. Maybe some day.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

Of course he does...he is 1/2 Italian and from Kearny NJ .... always keep your back to da wall. Bet he misses the Pecters rye bread, makes great toast with butter and eggs

LOL!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

Perhaps, but there is a lot in that question. I replied to this thread because of the labels offered and wanted to see if some clarification could be reached. What I see so far is that the two terms may present a false dichotomy. Why do I say this?

Well, you may have noticed that Reformed rejected my definition of what my position might be. But that is something we should want to avoid. That is why I only offered the rephrasing of Monergism without insisting on it. I do not want to simply put words in someone’s mouth or build a strawman argument, rather I am looking for some proverbial sharpening.

I think that first reply exposed a lot of the real issue, and I would like to see how that works out.

I have been on the road most of the day. Let me revisit this thread when I get home.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[thatbrian]

Certain comments are hard for me to ignore. I am working on my sanctification on those areas but I am not there yet. Maybe some day.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

There is a balance. Certain comments almost require a sarcastic response.

Jesus didn't speak like Mr. Rogers, and Luther was brilliant with his insults, which at times are appropriate, and dare I say, helpful.

Here is a couple of harsh (and well-deserved) ones directed at the pope:

“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”

“Even if the Antichrist appears, what greater evil can he do than what you have done and do daily?”​

 

[Reformed]

Anyway,

There is a balance. Certain comments almost require a sarcastic response.

Jesus didn't speak like Mr. Rogers, and Luther was brilliant with his insults, which at times are appropriate, and dare I say, helpful.

Here is a couple of harsh (and well-deserved) ones directed at the pope:

“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”

“Even if the Antichrist appears, what greater evil can he do than what you have done and do daily?”​

Good ole Martin sure did have a way with words.

 

[thatbrian]

Good ole Martin sure did have a way with words.

Christ and the Apostle Paul did, as well. Are we better than they?

 

[Reformed]

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.

OK. I am sitting in front of my computer and can better process your words.

John Hendryx at Monergism.com quotes from the New Century Dictionary on Synergism: "...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."

The same dictionary states this about Monergism: "In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

Webster's Dictionary, Theopedia, The Westminster Theological Dictionary et. al are all similar in their definitions.

Using your definition of Monergism, yes, consent on the part of the person does not precede regeneration. Once the human will is released from its bondage to sin it is free to believe, but regeneration has already taken place.

In your definition of Synergism, you do not use the word "cooperate", you substitute it with "consent". But even in your wording, God cannot regenerate without the consent of the individual, so there is still a cooperative effort taking place. Ergo, man is cooperating with God in regeneration.

You may want to look at this: Two View of Regeneration

Lastly, the person of the Godhead who regenerates is actually the Holy Spirit, not the Father or the Son.

 

[Reformed]

Christ and the Apostle Paul did, as well. Are we better than they?

Of course not, but we all have our personalities and ways of communicating. If I can make my point without being sarcastic, so much the better.

 

[thatbrian]

Of course not, but we all have our personalities and ways of communicating. If I can make my point without being sarcastic, so much the better.

I didn't mean in imply that you must communicate in a certain way. I was only trying to get you to see that you might be being hard on yourself for nothing.

 

[Felipe Rios]

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.

I honestly feel that most of this website is about debates between Calvinist v. Non-Calvinist. That's all people talk about in here. They should change the name of this Forum.

 

[Reformed]

I honestly feel that most of this website is about debates between Calvinist v. Non-Calvinist. That's all people talk about in here. They should change the name of this Forum.

You are free to visit the many forums on the Baptist Board that have nothing at all to do with Monergists and Synergists. Have fun!

 

[Reformed]

Ohhhhhhh....not cool!

I never said this topic was cool. Chasing down a good T.H.E.C. on a hard roll is cool. Theological discussions, on the other hand, can be a bit testy.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In your definition of Synergism, you do not use the word "cooperate", you substitute it with "consent". But even in your wording, God cannot regenerate without the consent of the individual, so there is still a cooperative effort taking place. Ergo, man is cooperating with God in regeneration.

Dear Reformed,

You went through a lot of explaining about Synergism, which is OK, but you still seem to want to define another’s view, rather than allow the other to do so. This points out a major problem with labels and why attempts to discuss can be so frustrating for everyone.

My definition was quite clear, and even closely matched a standard definition of Synergism, yet you did not seem to recognize it as such the first time around. But perhaps it really isn’t the standard definition, and Synergism does not describe my view.

I outright reject the term “cooperate” as descriptive of my view, because it connotes way too much. If a heart surgeon were to operate on me, I would not co-operate; I would consent, and want anesthesia. I would not do anything, and perhaps this is where Synergism is a poor term for my view. There are not two able surgeons or energetic agents in this operation, only one—God.

So, in this sense, I am a Monergist, just not your kind. The problem is that some must view consent as actually doing something, or able to accomplish something. I obviously do not view it that way at all, and I must reject any label that would suggest that I do. Being offered only the two labels as defined I feel is akin to asking me “Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No?” when I’ve never beat her.

What I find more intriguing is that you seem to be fine with the patient being operated on against his express will, yet you also state that the patient has no will until after the operation. Is that really what you meant?

RT&

 

[kyredneck]

Certain comments are hard for me to ignore.

Lol, you ever hear the old saying, "Let it roll off of you like water on a duck's back"?

Or another one, "Don't take yourself so seriously".

Or another one, "Life is 10% how you make it and 90% how you take it".

 

[Reformed]

You went through a lot of explaining about Synergism, which is OK, but you still seem to want to define another’s view,

I used accepted definitions by theologians on both sides of the argument. It is OK if you reject them. I never said any/all will agree with me.

This points out a major problem with labels and why attempts to discuss can be so frustrating for everyone.

It is frustrating for those who try to duck and hide from what they believe. I am absolutely convinced that many of those who reject labels do so to leave themselves an out if they do not like where the conversation leads.

My definition was quite clear, and even closely matched a standard definition of Synergism, yet you did not seem to recognize it as such the first time around. But perhaps it really isn’t the standard definition, and Synergism does not describe my view.

I have no idea what your view is and never bothered to ask. It is none of my business unless you offer to share it.

I outright reject the term “cooperate” as descriptive of my view, because it connotes way too much.

You have the right to reject whatever you want. I never asked you to accept what you are rejecting.

If a heart surgeon were to operate on me, I would not co-operate; I would consent, and want anesthesia. I would not do anything, and perhaps this is where Synergism is a poor term for my view. There are not two able surgeons or energetic agents in this operation, only one—God.

Theologically speaking, cooperating is not the same thing as consenting to an operation. Taking into consideration the great care you take in writing your posts, I think you know this.

So, in this sense, I am a Monergist, just not your kind.

Again, I have no idea what you believe. You have yet to make a positive defense of your position.

What I find more intriguing is that you seem to be fine with the patient being operated on against his express will, yet you also state that the patient has no will until after the operation. Is that really what you meant?

This is a very poor analogy.

 

[Reformed]

Lol, you ever hear the old saying, "Let it roll off of you like water on a duck's back"?

Or another one, "Don't take yourself so seriously".

Or another one, "Life is 10% how you make it and 90% how you take it".

Brother, I agree with you.

Let me give you an example. When I read a post from someone who is being purposefully obtuse, I have to grit my teeth for a moment. My first reaction is to respond in kind. Of course, that will not accomplish anything good. If it is a one-off type of thing, I can deal with it. We all have bad moments. But there are some folks who act that way all the time. They remove the enjoyment of board participation (for me). If it gets to that point I simply choose to make it more enjoyable for the both of us. I just click my mouse and the problem is resolved.

 

[kyredneck]

Like I said, 'To each his own'. Once I've got em' pegged, I personally derive some satisfaction observing them acting out just I suspected they would. I'd rather watch them than blank them out.