Terms speaking of God and Man's role in Salvation

[Calminian]

Nothing smug about it.
I don't claim to have all the answers...but why are there so many people following men that do claim to have them?

What I'm saying is, God's people can understand His words.
This should be no shock to you, nor am I proud about any of it.

I don't look down on anyone, Cal.

I'm a dirt-poor sinner saved by grace.
But I do take comfort in His word, and I do believe it...every bit of it.

If I have any understanding of it, it's by God's grace and His grace alone...the same as for anyone else on this board.

I wasn't accusing you specifically. I was speaking to myself and anyone else tempted to be overconfident. Certainly a study of God's word will reward us in understanding the basics 2Tim. 3:16-17. The deep mysteries of why and how God does things is different. I think it's healthy to doubt our knowledge in some areas. Somethings are indeed too wonderful to understand.

 

[Dave G]

Certainly a study of God's word will reward us in understanding the basics 2Tim. 3:16-17.

I think it goes far beyond the basics ( what exactly are "the basics", anyway? ).

The deep mysteries of why and how God does things is different.

With respect, I think we've had this conversation before.

If it's between the pages, I hold that there are no deep mysteries that are withheld from His children.
1 John 2:20-27.

I think it's healthy to doubt our knowledge in some areas.

Agreed.

But I don't think a believer will stay there forever.
Again, we can rightly divide the word of truth with enough study...

2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[Calminian]

I think it goes far beyond the basics ( what exactly are "the basics", anyway? ).

With respect, I think we've had this conversation before.

If it's between the pages, I hold that there are no deep mysteries that are withheld from His children.
1 John 2:20-27.

Agreed.
But I don't think a believer will stay there forever.
Again, we can rightly divide the word of truth with enough study...

2 Timothy 2:15.

I don't recall having this conversation with you before. You may be confusing me with someone else.

And I disagree with you on many of the mysteries you claim to understand. My hard work and study are brining me to some very different conclusions. But I wouldn't bet my eternity of any of it.

 

[Dave G]

And I disagree with you on many of the mysteries you claim to understand.

I realize that you do, and it saddens me.

However, I'll speak no more of this in this thread.
The topic is "terms", and we've wandered from it.

Let us return to it, shall we?
I'm sure Jon wouldn't mind.

 

[Calminian]

I realize that you do, and it saddens me.

And you say your not smug? Perfectionism borders on cult-like thinking, which saddens me.

 

[Dave G]

And you say your not smug? Perfectionism borders on cult-like thinking, which saddens me.

No, I'm not smug.

I'm confident in who the Lord has made me to be, and why He saved me.
To the praise of the glory of His grace, Cal.
My salvation has nothing to do with me,
What I do or do not know about the Bible has nothing to do with me, either.

If I get anything right, it's by His grace and mercy...
And I will never claim credit for one iota of it.

At all.

What saddens me, is that so many of my brothers and sisters have one thing that they could do to help them to grow, and like me, so many don't take it seriously until later in life.
That is why I urge people to study His word and to spend quality time in it.

What I'm trying to get across in my not-so-gentle manner is, that He waits patiently for us to simply pick it up and join Him ( Revelation 3:20 ).
So, let us do that, because He has much to show us that is important, my friend.



Good evening to you, and may He bless you in many ways.

 

[Calminian]

No, I'm not smug.

You may not be. Your comment was.

Grace and peace.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not belittling you at all, Mark.

I just happen to strongly disagree with your view of how and why God saves a person.
I'm also searching for a term that you feel comfortable with, in order to describe how you see salvation actually working.

Great, stop using that characterization

 

[Reynolds]

Pelagianism is, in fact, monergistic. Man is able to be righteous as an act of volition, and neither prevenient nor efficacious grace is required to bring man to salvation.

/QUOTE]
You are going to have to elaborate on this point. Pelagianism fits no definition of Monergism I have ever seen.

 

[rsr]

The nomenclature has a long history, although you don't see if too often; my guess is that Calvinists are far more interested in debating Arminians than Pelagians, given that the latter are recognized as heretics.

This is from Philip Schaff's Vol. 3 of History of the Christian Church, Section 146, published in 1867.

... The Greek, and particularly the Alexandrian fathers, in opposition to the dualism and fatalism of the Gnostic systems, which made evil a necessity of nature, laid great stress upon human freedom, and upon the indispensable cooperation of this freedom with divine grace; while the Latin fathers, especially Tertullian and Cyprian, Hilary and Ambrose, guided rather by their practical experience than by speculative principles, emphasized the hereditary sin and hereditary guilt of man, and the sovereignty of God's grace, without, however, denying freedom and individual accountability.

The Greek church adhered to her undeveloped synergism, which coordinates the human will and divine grace as factors in the work of conversion; the Latin church, under the influence of Augustine, advanced to the system of a divine, monergism, which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result of grace; while Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary. ...

Note: Boldface added

 

[rsr]

I can see that you appear to enjoy the use of the term "Calvie" as well.
I wish it were not so, but you are, of course, free to assign whatever term helps you to identify with people that you disagree with.
In the process, if you enjoy applying that label just because someone objects to it, I would encourage you to read Romans 12 as well as many other passages that have to do with our conduct towards each other as believers.

The term was directed at a specific poster. It was not meant to be derogatory. I do find it mildly humorous that by that simple mistake you seem to think you know my soteriological position.

I am puzzled about the rest of the post, in which you repeatedly correct me by agreeing with my positions. It seems I should write more clearly and precisely.

 

[Dave G]

I am puzzled about the rest of the post, in which you repeatedly correct me by agreeing with my positions. It seems I should write more clearly and precisely.

It also seems that I should be more thorough in my reading of what people write.

I ask your forgiveness, sir.

 

[JonC]

..

Pelagianism really is not Monergistic (in a theological sence) because it is the exact opposite as the term has the work of God in view. But it is also not synergism.

I think @rsr 's point is that Pelagianism is not synergism (he was correcting my comment that it was).

 

[Reynolds]

Pelagianism really is not Monergistic (in a theological sence) because it is the exact opposite as the term has the work of God in view. But it is also not synergism.

I think @rsr 's point is that Pelagianism is not synergism (he was correcting my comment that it was).

Thanks, makes sense what you just said, but that is not what he said. He said pelagianism is monergestic.

 

[Van]

I have not read any of the posts after the OP so this is just addressing the OP.

"Salvation depends." Now "depends" could refer to lots of things, God, Jesus, Sacrificial Sacrifice, and so forth. Can God save anyone of His choosing? Of course. So salvation does not depend on the person being saved, Romans 9:16. However, did God choose to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness? Yes. So the autonomous choice of the person being saved played a part in God's choice.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches God chose people for salvation through or on the basis of faith (as determined by God).

All this bogus doctrine that God chooses a person unconditionally, then causes the person have faith in Christ, is simply a denial of dozens of verses making reference to salvation through or on the basis of faith.

Does our faith, as flawed as it may be, earn or merit or justify our salvation? Of course not, God turns our sows ear faith into the needed silk purse.

So the Biblical view in monergistic (Romans 9:16), depending on God alone, but God's salvation includes crediting our faith (or not) so we play a part (syerngistic).

 

[Yeshua1]

Pelagianism is, in fact, monergistic. Man is able to be righteous as an act of volition, and neither prevenient nor efficacious grace is required to bring man to salvation.

I do not understand why synergism is pejorative. It accurately describes soteriological beliefs. You can't have it both ways: Either you are cooperating with God — through his grace, of course — or you are not.

The fact that some misguided Calvies want to claim that synergism is a means of "taking credit" for salvation is just a shame. I do not doubt that some synergists mistakenly emphasize their own role is salvation, just as some Calvies — who really should know better — deep down think there is something in them that makes them worthy of election. That, of course, is a strong indicator that they are NOT among the elect, IMO.

That very point that you made here in regards to those holding to Pelagianism seeing themselves able to freely decide by themselves to accept Jesus is why that view has been seen as being Heresy by the Historical Church!

 

[Yeshua1]

Back to the subject of the OP:

This is about terms...
If we cannot even agree on those, then there really is no point to this exercise.
To me, "Synergism" should be obvious:

noun: synergism
the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.
"the synergy between artist and record company"

It is co-operation.
In "soteriology", it would mean God doing one thing or set of things, and relying on men for the remainder.


"Monergism" should also be obvious, at least to me.
God does it all, and man simply reacts ( in synergy ) to what the Lord has done ( in monergy ) with the necessary evidences that will be there by the power of His Spirit and the newness of a changed heart.

Best theology to me for outlining synergistic view would be the Sacramental Catholic model!

 

[Yeshua1]

The term was directed at a specific poster. It was not meant to be derogatory. I do find it mildly humorous that by that simple mistake you seem to think you know my soteriological position.

I am puzzled about the rest of the post, in which you repeatedly correct me by agreeing with my positions. It seems I should write more clearly and precisely.

I think that many of us here need to get thicker skinned, and realise when we are just jesting with each other, as in :calvie, Dispy, presbie etc"

 

[37818]

Yes man has a role in his own salvation, receiving it as wholly from God as an underserved gift, Romans 6:23.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes man has a role in his own salvation, receiving it as wholly from God as an underserved gift, Romans 6:23.

Then the question is are we trusting in Jesus based upon our own free will, based upon God gracing it, our faith or due to toGod giving the gift of faith to us?