Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms

[Felipe Rios]

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&

Glory to God!

 

[Felipe Rios]

What caused you to receive Jesus as Lord, yourself or God?

God. But I had a choice which you will deny.

 

[Don]

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&

If I may -- using your analogy, the monergist (Calvinist) position is that the individual on the operating table has deceased; the actions of the doctor are to bring a person whose heart has stopped beating, back to life. In such an analogy, there is no consent given, or required, of the patient.

The proper analogy that you're attempting to introduce is akin to an ambulance bringing in two or more unconscious patients on death's door. The doctor may choose to perform actions to save one, but determine the other cannot be saved. Neither patient is awake or aware, and cannot ask the doctor to choose them; the doctor makes the decision, without cooperation or consent from either patient.

But there are holes in that analogy as well, because no analogy is perfect.

 

[Reformed]

no analogy is perfect.

I concur.

Ephesians 2:1 says that the sinner is νεκρος [nekros] - dead in his trespasses and sins (c.f. Col. 2:13). That Greek word is specific. It is used to refer to a corpse. Just as a corpse can do nothing of its own volition, the sinner is incapable of any assent towards God (c.f. Ro. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Just as Jesus spoke life into Lazarus (c.f. JN. 11:43-44), the Holy Spirit breathes life into God's Elect through regeneration, making the individual capable of believing. The sinner's heart of stone is replaced with a heart of flesh (c.f. Ezk. 36:26). Any act of the will takes place after the Holy Spirit has done His work. This is why RT's analogy fails.

 

[thatbrian]

I concur.

Ephesians 2:1 says that the sinner is νεκρος [nekros] - dead in his trespasses and sins (c.f. Col. 2:13). That Greek word is specific. It is used to refer to a corpse. Just as a corpse can do nothing of its own volition, the sinner is incapable of any assent towards God (c.f. Ro. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Just as Jesus spoke life into Lazarus (c.f. JN. 11:43-44), the Holy Spirit breathes life into God's Elect through regeneration, making the individual capable of believing. The sinner's heart of stone is replaced with a heart of flesh (c.f. Ezk. 36:26). Any act of the will takes place after the Holy Spirit has done His work. This is why RT's analogy fails.

This is grace - all of grace! While I was God's enemy, He plucked me from the fire. Out of the filth of my sin, He pulled me, and He washed me by His Word. He clothed me in white, and He restored my sight so that I might gaze upon His majesty. Not waiting for me to come to Him, He came to me.

"This is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us. . ."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If I may -- using your analogy, the monergist (Calvinist) position is that the individual on the operating table has deceased; the actions of the doctor are to bring a person whose heart has stopped beating, back to life. In such an analogy, there is no consent given, or required, of the patient.

The proper analogy that you're attempting to introduce is akin to an ambulance bringing in two or more unconscious patients on death's door. The doctor may choose to perform actions to save one, but determine the other cannot be saved. Neither patient is awake or aware, and cannot ask the doctor to choose them; the doctor makes the decision, without cooperation or consent from either patient.

But there are holes in that analogy as well, because no analogy is perfect.

I concur.

Ephesians 2:1 says that the sinner is νεκρος [nekros] - dead in his trespasses and sins (c.f. Col. 2:13). That Greek word is specific. It is used to refer to a corpse. Just as a corpse can do nothing of its own volition, the sinner is incapable of any assent towards God (c.f. Ro. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Just as Jesus spoke life into Lazarus (c.f. JN. 11:43-44), the Holy Spirit breathes life into God's Elect through regeneration, making the individual capable of believing. The sinner's heart of stone is replaced with a heart of flesh (c.f. Ezk. 36:26). Any act of the will takes place after the Holy Spirit has done His work. This is why RT's analogy fails.

This is grace - all of grace! While I was God's enemy, He plucked me from the fire. Out of the filth of my sin, He pulled me, and He washed me by His Word. He clothed me in white, and He restored my sight so that I might gaze upon His majesty. Not waiting for me to come to Him, He came to me.

"This is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us. . ."

Hi, Don, (and others too)

Yes, of course you may, and thank you. I have to agree that analogies are imperfect and thus fail to tell the whole story. Your and Reformed's observations are certainly valid. The problem is that, though spiritually dead to God, as thatbrian pointed out, we are yet God's enemies, blind and hostile, that is, willfully sinning more than we know. So, though your analogy might be useful, the heart of stone yet allows for some very negative spiritual activity prior to the operation, and I still think my analogy apt. And the upshot is, this still leaves me label-less.

I also think we all fully concur with thatbrian's closer, but I will never tire of it.

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10, NIV)

By the way, I wonder who and what Peter had in mind when saying, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40b) Can anyone actually save himself?

RT&

 

[Don]

RT& -- you made mention of "negative spiritual energy." Would you elaborate?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

RT& -- you made mention of "negative spiritual energy." Would you elaborate?

Hi, Don,

I think you are referring to my phrase "very negative spiritual activity," by which I meant to indicate sin. It was merely a restatement in other words. Is it that important here?

Have we lost sight of the purpose of the OP? The two labels were supposed to sufficiently cover all views. It seems apparent they are not. Neither of the understood definitions match the description of my view. The task is not to try to change my view, but to find the right label based on its description.

I believe that our enmity toward God was real, and also our surrender. I do not affirm that there is any human effort in surrendering. That is much too strong a word. If anything, it is the opposite, that is, we give up fighting against God’s will that we be saved. Perhaps we find Him simply irresistible. Did I just say that? Hallelujah!

RT&

 

[Reformed]

The problem is that, though spiritually dead to God, as thatbrian pointed out, we are yet God's enemies, blind and hostile, that is, willfully sinning more than we know. So, though your analogy might be useful, the heart of stone yet allows for some very negative spiritual activity prior to the operation, and I still think my analogy apt.

RT, I am not sure what you are driving at here; just because a sinner is dead in his trespasses and sins does not mean he cannot make sinful choices. The sinner is, so-to-speak, a dead man walking; physically alive but spiritually dead. None of his deeds are righteous while still in his sinful state. Even those deeds that are beneficial to himself or society are not done out of a heart that is in right standing with God. Even when the sinner is converted he does not possess his own righteousness. Any righteousness that he has is an alien and imputed righteousness.

And the upshot is, this still leaves me label-less.

Well, as I have no idea what you believe in regards to your soteriology all I can do is guess, and that is not the purpose of this thread. You are whatever it is you are. Over time your posts will do a better job revealing what you believe than any label will.

By the way, I wonder who and what Peter had in mind when saying, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40b) Can anyone actually save himself?

I like how Matthew Henry expounds on this:

With many other words,to the same purport, did he testify gospel truths, and exhort to gospel duties; now that the word began to work he followed it; he had said much in a little (v. 38, v. 39), and that which, one would think, included all, and yet he had more to say. When we have heard those words which have done our souls good, we cannot but wish to hear more, to hear many more such words. Among other things he said (and it should seem inculcated it), Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Be you free from them. The unbelieving Jews were an untoward generation, perverse and obstinate; they walked contrary to God and man (1 Th. 2:15 ), wedded to sin and marked for ruin. Now as to them, 1. "Give diligence to save yourselves from their ruin, that you may not be involved in that, and may escape all those things’’ (as the Christians did): "Repent, and be baptized; and then you shall not be sharers in destruction with those with whom you have been sharers in sin.’’ O gather not my soul with sinners. 2. "In order to this continue not with them in their sin, persist not with them in infidelity. Save yourselves, that is, separate yourselves, distinguish yourselves, from this untoward generation. Be not rebellious like this rebellious house; partake not with them in their sins, that you share not with them in their plagues.’’ Note, To separate ourselves from wicked people is the only way to save ourselves from them; though we hereby expose ourselves to their rage and enmity, we really save ourselves from them; for, if we consider whither they are hastening, we shall see it is better to have the trouble of swimming against their stream than the danger of being carried down their stream. Those that repent of their sins, and give up themselves to Jesus Christ, must evidence their sincerity by breaking off all intimate society with wicked people. Depart from me, ye evil doers, is the language of one that determines to keep the commandments of his God, Ps. 119:115 . We must save ourselves from them, which denotes avoiding them with dread and holy fear, as we would save ourselves from an enemy that seeks to destroy us, or from a house infected with the plague.

Peter was talking about separation. His predominantly Jewish audience was living in a time of ritualistic Judaism that spoke a good game but failed to truly honor God:

Isaiah 29:13 13 Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me,

c.f. Mat. 15:8

I think you know better than to suggest people can save themselves soteriologically.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

RT, I am not sure what you are driving at here; just because a sinner is dead in his trespasses and sins does not mean he cannot make sinful choices. The sinner is, so-to-speak, a dead man walking; physically alive but spiritually dead. None of his deeds are righteous while still in his sinful state. Even those deeds that are beneficial to himself or society are not done out of a heart that is in right standing with God. Even when the sinner is converted he does not possess his own righteousness. Any righteousness that he has is an alien and imputed righteousness.

Hi, Reformed,

My point is that the lifeless corpse analogy Don offered does not fully describe the situation, as the sinner is still quite actively sinning. You said practically the same thing I did, but just did not make the connection. The sinner can still surrender to God, that is, agree to the operation. This does not at all equate to him co-operating as a surgeon, or even as some sort of assistant--no energy, no ergo.

Again, it’s OK if you do not like the analogy, since it does not fit your view, but it is quite apt for the discussion of my view, and is a reasonable interpretation of Scripture.

RT&

 

[Reformed]

The sinner can still surrender to God, that is, agree to the operation.

Incorrect. The sinner can do nothing but remain in his fallen state (Rom 3:9-18; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). You seem to think that "actively sinning" countermands the sinner being spiritually dead. Actually, it reinforces it. The real test is whether or not the sinner can do anything prior to regeneration to change his spiritual nature.

Again, it’s OK if you do not like the analogy, since it does not fit your view, but it is quite apt for the discussion of my view, and is a reasonable interpretation of Scripture.

I am not against your analogy because you think I do not like it. I reject it because it completely misses the mark Paul is making in the verses I cited earlier in this post. And as for your view, we still have no idea what it is.

 

[Don]

RT& - thanks for the clarification. "Activity" was what I needed pointed out.

I think you miss the point of the monergist view. Please consider, the monergist doesn't ascribe to "actively" sinning before salvation. Before salvation, being spiritually dead, all actions are sinful, no matter how "good," because for the spiritually dead, any righteousness is as filthy rags. Thus, the monergist cannot accept your analogy.

Does that make sense?

Reformed -- please correct this if it's wrong.

 

[thatbrian]

@Reformed. I think we win because the Arminians now all sound like Calvinists.

(it probably has much more to do with not wanted to be nailed down, and being a moving target)

 

[Don]

@Reformed. I think we win because the Arminians now all sound like Calvinists.

(it probably has much more to do with not wanted to be nailed down, and being a moving target)

You've been asking for an arminian to present the Calvinist point of view for weeks, haven't you? I take it I've succeeded?

 

[Reformed]

@Reformed. I think we win because the Arminians now all sound like Calvinists.

(it probably has much more to do with not wanted to be nailed down, and being a moving target)

I am convinced of it. For some reason there is this aversion to flying one's flag up the mast and saying, "This is what I believe!" I was being truthful when I said I will not attack someone for admitting they are a Synergist. I will critique the theological merits of their position, but I will give them kudos for stating the obvious.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed Baptist pastor and theologian Richard Barcellos, posted this today:

"Let us remember that theology is an intellectual act, the goal of which is worship. We are attempting to grasp what God has revealed to us, a great privilege, and creaturely theology’s goal is communion with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and all its entailments."

That is why we discuss these things. We should want closer communion with God by knowing more about Him.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The real test is whether or not the sinner can do anything prior to regeneration to change his spiritual nature.

In my view, No, he cannot do anything to change it, only God can change it.

I am not against your analogy because you think I do not like it. I reject it because it completely misses the mark Paul is making in the verses I cited earlier in this post.

Thus, the monergist cannot accept your analogy.

I am not asking anyone to agree with my analogy, only accept that I have it. I am using it to illustrate my view, not to push my view. I am not asking anyone to accept my view, only accept that I have it.

Please consider, the monergist doesn't ascribe to "actively" sinning before salvation. Before salvation, being spiritually dead, all actions are sinful, no matter how "good," because for the spiritually dead, any righteousness is as filthy rags.

(emphasis mine) These sound like restatements to me. But again, I was just explaining my own analogy and view, not pushing them. I do not say that the sinner is doing anything good.

Thanks for the replies; sorry for anything that sounds rude here. I actually had a lot to say, but, because of the seeming confusion, would rather come back when I’ve thought a bit more about how to address it.

RT&

 

[thatbrian]

I am convinced of it. For some reason there is this aversion to flying one's flag up the mast and saying, "This is what I believe!" I was being truthful when I said I will not attack someone for admitting they are a Synergist. I will critique the theological merits of their position, but I will give them kudos for stating the obvious.

The Arminian does not want to take credit for his salvation. He knows that he was saved by grace, so he gets put into a very uncomfortable spot with threads like this. He mustn't move left or right, yet he does squirm around quite a bit. When the reality of his beliefs are pressed hard, he finds himself between that old rock and hard place.

 

[Don]

The Arminian does not want to take credit for his salvation. He knows that he was saved by grace, so he gets put into a very uncomfortable spot with threads like this. He mustn't move left or right, yet he does squirm around quite a bit. When the reality of his beliefs are pressed hard, he finds himself between that old rock and hard place.

You don't even recognize how intellectually dishonest you are, do you?

 

[InTheLight]

The Arminian does not want to take credit for his salvation. He knows that he was saved by grace, so he gets put into a very uncomfortable spot with threads like this. He mustn't move left or right, yet he does squirm around quite a bit. When the reality of his beliefs are pressed hard, he finds himself between that old rock and hard place.

Why don't you leave Baptist Board for a couple of days and have arguments with this Ar Minian fellow that you know so well? Since you can read his mind you should do fairly well in the debate.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk