Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms

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

 

LOL!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

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

 

Anyway,

Good ole Martin sure did have a way with words.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

This is a very poor analogy.

 

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.