• 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!

What do Monergism and Synergism mean and why are they important?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sapper Woody

Well-Known Member
But that is my point. People on this form call me a Calvinist all the time. I don't bother to correct them. The term, even though it is wrong, is a common short hand term for the 5 Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. It would be silly (not to mention a bit childish) of me to object to the term when it is being used in a way that is compatible with what I believe.
And therein lies the contention behind this particular label. It is a misrepresentation (at least, the way that the OP stated it) of what people believe.

But that is the point. It is not the label. It is the doctrinal understanding behind the label.

But without labels, how could you discuss the issues?

Above I said I was a "5 pointer." That is a label that effectively identifies the starting point for our discussion. Without that label how could we even start the discussion?
I am not against labels at all. I am advocating for the disuse of "rejected labels". My very screen name is a label. If someone wanted to label me as a Sapper, I'd be all for that. But if they labeled me as a Ranger, I'd reject that. And if they insisted on that label, then I'd know that they didn't want any serious discussion of my occupation in the military.

This is the objection Reformed made to Revmitchels rejection of the word "Synergist." But while rejecting the word, he refuses to define what exactly he believes.

While I eschew the word Calvinist I am more than willing to state what I believe, without equivocation. And that is the problem. By complaining about the label, without explaining WHY he refuses the label, there is no place to start the discussion. :)
I will not attempt to answer for Rev, as I don't know his mind. But for me, the rejection of the label stems from the post where Reformed said that Synergists believe that God CANNOT save man without man's cooperation. I do not personally know of anyone who believes that.

Now, I know a lot of people who believe that God CHOSE to not save man without man's accepting of the gift of salvation. Now, if you wish to call that cooperation and use that as the definition of Synergism, I'd accept that label. But trying to use a label with a wrong definition as Reformed did, and I'll reject it.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Agreed.

I don't like them either but I use them.

I don't like going to the dentist, but I go :)


HankD

Yep. Imagine if we had to take 15 words to describe the word "dentist" every time we discuss one.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't want your labels. if you are going to describe what I believe then you need to do it the way I do or your description is in error.



You are now being silly and over exaggerating.



Again I do not want your labels that are descriptions based on your presuppositions.



I am not fearful of that either. I never said I was fearful so your accusation is just false.Again another label (fearful) I never claimed to have. Neither is it the only option. It does help with your demonization.



If the people that you assign them to do not agree then no they are not accurate. Further it is disrespectful and only create animosity. it hurts reasonable discussion not furthers it. If you and anyone else is going to have a continued discussion you do not get to set the boundaries for that discussion all by yourself. You must both agree to terms. Cals want to set the boundaries (i.e. what the characterizations and labels are to be) and then demonize anyone who will not accept them. And around here cals dog pile on anyone who will not agree to cal boundaries.

In the end you guys do not want reasonable discussion you want to be right and defeat others with whom you disagree. These discussions are all about win and lose and you guys are willing to do anything to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
[/QUOTE]

I can't even respond to you point-by-point anymore because I no longer take you seriously.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out. That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things? You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object. We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing. I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Your definitions are spot on theological sense of these two terms.

Basically, it comes down to just how do we view ourselves after the fall, as that will determine if we can assist God in salvation or not!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But that is my point. People on this form call me a Calvinist all the time. I don't bother to correct them. The term, even though it is wrong, is a common short hand term for the 5 Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. It would be silly (not to mention a bit childish) of me to object to the term when it is being used in a way that is compatible with what I believe.

But that is the point. It is not the label. It is the doctrinal understanding behind the label.

But without labels, how could you discuss the issues?

Above I said I was a "5 pointer." That is a label that effectively identifies the starting point for our discussion. Without that label how could we even start the discussion?

This is the objection Reformed made to Revmitchels rejection of the word "Synergist." But while rejecting the word, he refuses to define what exactly he believes.

While I eschew the word Calvinist I am more than willing to state what I believe, without equivocation. And that is the problem. By complaining about the label, without explaining WHY he refuses the label, there is no place to start the discussion. :)
We have to define the theological wording used, or else we end up as the Cultists do, in totally redefining Christianity!
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yep. Imagine if we had to take 15 words to describe the word "dentist" every time we discuss one.
Dentist : A medical professional who has a medical degree and practitioners license who can legally be addressed as "doctor" however is not licensed to practice medicine as a "general practitioner".

Oops - that was more than 15 words :)

HankD
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
It is a misrepresentation (at least, the way that the OP stated it) of what people believe.
I disagree. It is a well established theological term with a very specific meaning.

But for me, the rejection of the label stems from the post where Reformed said that Synergists believe that God CANNOT save man without man's cooperation. I do not personally know of anyone who believes that.
I disagree that is what he meant. I answered it privately, but will repost it here.
When Reformed says that God CANNOT save a man without his cooperation, I don't think he is saying that God lacks the power, or authority, or the ability to do so, but that, as you say, He has chosen to allow man's cooperation. And as "He changest not, neither is there shadow of turning" once He makes that decision it is not subject to change. So in that sense, because of His decree to allow man's cooperation He can no longer, to be consistent, disallow it.

The Monergist does not say the Synergisty limits God. The Monergist says that God is able to save whomever He pleases. The Synergist says that God is able to save all but has chosen to only save those who cooperate with Him.

The problem the Monergist has with that is that the bible seems to clearly say that the lost man does not seek God, he doesn't accept the spiritual things of God, he thinks the whole thing is foolish, he can't understand them because such understanding requires spiritual discernment that only comes through the indwelling and illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of that person. He is, in fact, the enemy of God.

So, it seems to me that lost man is most uncooperative. :)
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I challenge those who believe that God first draws the individual, and then the individual has to choose of their own free will whether to accept or reject the gospel [like that long-winded attempt to avoid using a label?] to consider the theological implications of their belief. For instance "those who believe that God first draws the individual, and then the individual has to choose of their own free will whether to accept or reject the gospel" believe that man has to believe of his own free will to accept the offer of salvation. God will not force His will on the sinner. I have not met anyone from the "those who believe that God first draws the individual, and then the individual has to choose of their own free will whether to accept or reject the gospel" camp who rejects the need for the sinner to believe of His own free will or that God will not assault the human will. Therefore, God, by Himself, cannot save anyone. The individual MUST choose to believe before they are regenerated. I don't care whether you identify as a Monergist, Synergist, Calvinist, Arminian, or a Shih Tzu, If God is not capable of regenerating the individual without any participation by the individual, then another entity besides God must participate in regeneration. Ergo, under this view regeneration is a cooperative effort. God draws, the individual responds by either believing or not. That is a synergistic transaction, a.k.a. Synergism. It doesn't matter whether you like the term or not. Just using the dictionary definition of Synergism, "those who believe that God first draws the individual, and then the individual has to choose of their own free will whether to accept or reject the gospel" MUST believe the individual plays a role in regeneration, without with regeneration is impossible.

Monergists believe in something termed the effectual call. Those whom God calls He makes able to believe through regeneration. Once regeneration (i.e. the new birth) takes place, the will has been liberated from sin. The Individual under this belief system then is able freely to believe because the will has been liberated. According to this view, regeneration is a sole divine act with no participation by the one being regenerated. This a textbook definition of Monergism.

Now, if you reject these descriptions and the terms theologians use to describe them, well, to quote one of my favorite movies, "get used to disappointment". This thread is not really meant to debate Synergism vs. Monergism, but to define their terms. Once we really know what others believe, we are able to have better discussions.
 
Last edited:

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dentist : A medical professional who has a medical degree and practitioners license who can legally be addressed as "doctor" however is not licensed to practice medicine as a "general practitioner".

Oops - that was more than 15 words :)

HankD
ROFL
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

I can't even respond to you point-by-point anymore because I no longer take you seriously.[/QUOTE]

I guess you win then don't you.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Okay. I will stand and declare, I am a Monergist. My salvation is All Of God and none of me. I, like Paul, can loudly proclaim, "In me . . . dwells no good thing." No desire to know God. No desire to believe God. No desire to obey God. But God, by His Amazing Grace, used the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to draw a rebellious sinner to Himself, and give him a new heart of faith that now desires to know Him, to believe Him, to obey Him.

All of God. None of me. To God, and God alone, be the Glory!
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said that Synergists believe that God CANNOT save man without man's cooperation. I do not personally know of anyone who believes that.

How else do you describe, according to the free will position, God's refusal to save those who refuse the free gift of eternal life? Most free willers believe in the general call. God calls sinners to repent and believe. We know that not all sinners will believe, right? How many free will devotees do you know who believe that God will sovereignly regenerate an unbelieving sinner against their will? So, according to the free will position, God will not violate individual free will. God places a limit on Himself by doing so. Man MUST believe BEFORE he is regenerated. Any free willer who believes God can regenerate a person, and then that person can still accept or reject the gospel is confused.

Now, go ahead and reject that explanation, but I stand by it unapologetically.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said:
I can't even respond to you point-by-point anymore because I no longer take you seriously.

Revmitchess said:
I guess you win then don't you.
This is not about winning. You refused ad infinitum, ad nauseaum to own your own position. You obfuscate, misdirect, play the martyr, and ask for threads to be closed when you can't get your way. You look like a tool when you play this game, that's why I can't take you seriously. I'm more than happy to engage with people who disagree with me; even if they do so vigorously, so long as they're honest about what they believe.

P.S. Edited to correct typos.
 
Last edited:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is not about winning. You refused ad infinitum, ad nauseaum to own your own position. You obfuscate, misdirect,

Uh no this is what you do.

play the martyr,

Yes I do bring up the personal attacks. More obfuscation by you when you do that.

and ask for threads to be closed when you can't get your way.

See here is the thing, Prove this was my motivation. Did I say this was the reason why? You assign motives and meaning to the words and actions of others you cannot possibly know. You, in fact do not know why I wanted my thread closed because you never asked me. It is the one single way you can know.

You cannot define for me or anyone else terms or doctrine based on your personal and chosen terms. I am not going to be defined by your presuppositions nor your terms.

You look a tool when you play this game,

This is the personal attack I am talking about.

that's why I can't take you seriously.

That is on you. My life will carry on without you.

I'm more than happy to engage with people who disagree with me; even if they do so vigorously, so long as they're honest about what they believe.

I have not been dishonest about anything. Again personal attack.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How many free will devotees do you know who believe that God will sovereignly regenerate an unbelieving sinner against their will?

Hopefully all of them. After all, this is what happened to John the Baptist and Saul/Paul. I could make a case that this also happened to Mary, mother of Jesus.

So, according to the free will position, God will not violate individual free will.

Correction. According to your description of the free will position.

Man MUST believe BEFORE he is regenerated.

Yes, yes. John 20:31. Check.
Ephesians 1:13. Got it.

Any free willer who believes God can regenerate a person, and then that person can still accept or reject the gospel is confused.

Anybody that believes this is confused, never mind free willer or not.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out. That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things? You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object. We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing. I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
His real objection to a label is when his error is exposed he can claim the label does not really reflect his view, but he never clarifies it because he knows his error will be manifest.
if someone desires truth...they should stand and own their position openly. If it cannot be defended...abandon it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top