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

[Reformed]

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.

These conversions would be inconsistent with most of the arguments for free will that I have read on this board. They would be consistent with the Monergist position. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps what you are hinting at is that God makes exceptions even though the biblical model (according to free will proponents) is free will before regeneration? If so, then we can't stop at "exceptions" like JTB, Paul, or Mary; we have to extend it to Joseph, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah et. al. And since God shows no partiality (Romans 2:11-16), how can we limit His exceptions just to noted biblical figures? Regeneration before belief/faith should apply to all. Regeneration before belief/faith is the Monergist position.

It just so happens that I sat under a lecture by the late Dr. Charles Ryrie a number of years back. He was asked a question along the lines of, "If the Calvinist view of predestination and election is wrong, how do we reconcile God using some of the most famous people in the Bible? It doesn't look like all of them had a choice." Dr. Ryrie's answer was very interesting and refreshingly honest. He said that there were only three possible answers to the question. 1. A free will choice, while not clearly explained, is implied because the theological position [free will] demands consistency. 2. The Calvinist view is correct. 3. It is a mystery, but one on shaky ground, because there is no warrant in Scripture. Dr. Ryrie said that #1 was the only choice he could make and be honest with his doctrinal convictions. What was honest about Dr. Ryrie's answer was that he remained consistent with his theological convictions. He recognized the difficulty presented by all three answers but chose the one he believed in most. If he chose #2 then...well...I think we know how that would have gone

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

Isn't that a given for any opinion expressed on this board? And while it is my opinion, how is it free will if God violates it? I was a Synergist for neigh on 20 years. I never heard one gospel message from a free will preacher that did not emphasize the choice of the individual as being the determining factor as to their coming to faith in Christ. The late evangelist Jack Wrytzen was famous for the following appeal that he gave at every invitation, "If you can't stand up for God here, surrounded by all these people, you'll never be able to stand for him anywhere!" Jerry Falwell used to preach similarly. I am not saying there are free will preachers that don't misspeak or make exceptions, but it is not the norm.

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

Those are free will hallmarks, not Monergist ones. To be consistent free will believers need to remember this.

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

I totally agree.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sapper Woody said: ↑
And so, purposefully ascribing a rejected label to someone is at best inflammatory, yet more often derogatory. If a productive discussion or debate is to ever take place, then the use of rejected labels cannot happen. Otherwise all you get is argument of labels, rather than discussion of important topics.

This is exactly true, however it at least appears there is no interest in doing any different because if they get to set the terms and the boundaries for the discussion then they have the argument won before it ever gets going. As you said a strawman. I have on several occasions started threads giving my positions on some of these topics between cals and myself with no response from anyone.
yep

You two have posted on here for years and no one can describe what you
believe except it is not close to the truth.
Both of you are vague and evasive. State clearly and biblically what you believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

I can't tell if this is just juvenile sarcasm or if you really do not understand this issue.

Man up mitchell...answer a post for a change. Stop this elusive double talk.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed,

. 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.

Yet at prayer meeting these same persons will ask God to save their family and friends???

 

[Reformed]

Yet at prayer meeting these same persons will ask God to save their family and friends???

I never understood that. It is blatantly inconsistent with the free will position.

 

[Iconoclast]

Uh no this is what you do.

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

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.

This is the personal attack I am talking about.


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

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

He was spot on and truthful with his comments. you never answer and probably post less scripture than Y1.

 

[Sapper Woody]

You two have posted on here for years and no one can describe what you
believe except it is not close to the truth.
Both of you are vague and evasive. State clearly and biblically what you believe.

Not going to lie. That made me laugh. It's no secret what I believe, and I've even posted in depth what I believe before, a few times. I even outlined it again in a PM to TCassidy today. But for your sake, I'll post it again right here.

I believe that man cannot just choose to come to Christ any time he chooses. I believe that there must be a drawing of the Holy Spirit in which the person realizes they are a sinner destined for hell, and their only hope is the savior.

At that point is when their choice is made. They can either give in to the Holy Spirit's call and accept Christ, or deny Him. I believe that God is long suffering, so some people may get several chances for this.

I believe that salvation is all of God, and the only thing He requires of us on our end is simply to "Give In". I believe that God, in His sovreinty, could force any and all to bend to His will. I believe He could save some and leave some of He wanted.

But I believe that His plan was to receive complete Glory in allowing man the choice, making each decision for Christ a pure and sweet victory, rather than a forced outcome.

I believe that God is showing Satan (much like in Job), that despite Satan running the show on Earth currently, that there will always be a remnant who will choose God, regardless of the attempts of Satan to stamp it out.

So, is that clear enough of a statement of what I believe?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[rsr]

Very clear. But "I believe that salvation is all of God, and the only thing He requires of us on our end is simply to 'Give In.'" seems to me be saying that man must cooperate with God for salvation. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[Van]

I see we are on page 3, with the Cals defining all the terms, and looking at the issues through their presuppositions. And then we can toss in a bunch of ad homenim posts whose purpose is to disparage.

Lets back up to God making conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, I will relent. Since God establishes the conditional, and determines who, if anyone, meets the condition, God's action is monergistic. God does not need for anyone to repent, and repenting does not cause God to rely upon man. A conditional covenant does not mean God is not all powerful.

On the other hand, you will see posts where Cals claim if God does not compel the repent, God is depending on man's actions.
Such is the absurdity of their argument.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and if God chooses to have mercy on those whose faith He has credited as righteousness, that salvation is monergistic. For salvation does not depend on the person who wills, but on God having mercy. Thus the Cal argument has once again been shown to be unbiblical and unstudied.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sapper Woody,

Hello SW
Thanks for your reply.If it is okay...can I ask a few questions for clarification?

Not going to lie. That made me laugh.

Laughing is good...keeps us from taking ourselves to seriously...

It's no secret what I believe, and I've even posted in depth what I believe before, a few times. I even outlined it again in a PM to TCassidy today. But for your sake, I'll post it again right here.

Thanks, lets take a look;

I believe that man cannot just choose to come to Christ any time he chooses.

Why Not? Can you biblically describe where we are told he cannot come? what prevents him from coming?

I believe that there must be a drawing of the Holy Spirit in which the person realizes they are a sinner destined for hell, and their only hope is the savior.

How does this drawing work? If the person did not want to come, as you said...he cannot.....what changes where he can come?

At that point is when their choice is made.

What point?
Are you saying that the person changes apart from any supernatural work?
In what way were they drawn?

Is your idea of drawing....that somehow they get a little more information?

The scripture says the natural man...cannot understand, yet you have him
realizing his condition.

They can either give in to the Holy Spirit's call and accept Christ, or deny Him.

What has changed?
How is the natural man....able to do this in the strength of his fallen nature?

I believe that God is long suffering, so some people may get several chances for this.

God is longsuffering as He is not willing that any he purposed to save, be lost.

I believe that salvation is all of God

,

Ok...good, but in what way is it all of God? Only the Part where Jesus goes to the cross?

and the only thing He requires of us on our end is simply to "Give In"

I am not sure where we get this idea presented scripturally?
If the man must "give in" Does he do it? God is a spectator who has to wait for ,an to do something?
When it says in Acts 16...Lydia...whose heart the LORD opened....how do you break that down? how did she "give in?"

. I believe that God, in His sovreinty, could force any and all to bend to His will.

where does scripture use the language of possibility? where does it say He forces anyone?I am pressing the language here to be more specific.

I believe He could save some and leave some of He wanted.

SW....Do you believe God is a Covenant making and Covenant keeping God?...you say could??? When he promised Abraham....was it actual or only potential?
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

But I believe that His plan was to receive complete Glory in allowing man the choice

,

Do you have scriptures that teach this?

making each decision for Christ a pure and sweet victory, rather than a forced outcome.

A victory for who? who is forced?

I believe that God is showing Satan (much like in Job), that despite Satan running the show on Earth currently, that there will always be a remnant who will choose God,

Again why does the remnant choose God?

So, is that clear enough of a statement of what I believe?

it helps, but I need clarification. I understand what you are suggesting, but cannot connect the dots so far,,,

Take your time, but it would be helpful if you could walk me through this a bit.

 

[Iconoclast]

I see we are on page 3, with the Cals defining all the terms, and looking at the issues through their presuppositions. And then we can toss in a bunch of ad homenim posts whose purpose is to disparage.

Lets back up to God making conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, I will relent. Since God establishes the conditional, and determines who, if anyone, meets the condition, God's action is monergistic. God does not need for anyone to repent, and repenting does not cause God to rely upon man. A conditional covenant does not mean God is not all powerful.

On the other hand, you will see posts where Cals claim if God does not compel the repent, God is depending on man's actions.
Such is the absurdity of their argument.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and if God chooses to have mercy on those whose faith He has credited as righteousness, that salvation is monergistic. For salvation does not depend on the person who wills, but on God having mercy. Thus the Cal argument has once again been shown to be unbiblical and unstudied.

trying to force your Godcrediting man idea will not bring clarity...

 

[Rippon]

First I disagree with the given definition. Both are based on Calvinist presupposition. Second the label is a label not a definition.

How much Church History do you know? It sounds like you can only go back to the D. L. Moody era.

Labels are used for convenience. Must every label be fleshed out? Most folks somewhat familiar with Historical Theology to some extent know what's behind the labels.

 

[Reformed]

Very clear. But "I believe that salvation is all of God, and the only thing He requires of us on our end is simply to 'Give In.'" seems to me be saying that man must cooperate with God for salvation. Am I misunderstanding?

You are not misunderstanding. If man must do anything in the salvation process, then the process is a cooperative process. I wrote in a previous thread that this cooperation does not need to in equal parts, it just has to exist to be real. So, if God brings the sinner 98% towards regeneration, but the sinner has to bring the other 2% through faith, that is a cooperative act even though the parts are not equal. If you are building a shed but ask me to help you with a hanging the front door, you asked me to cooperate with you in the building of the shed. Sure. You may have done 90% of the work, but you didn't do it all. I can rightly claim that I worked alongside you, or cooperated with you, in building the shed.

 

[Reformed]

Yet at prayer meeting these same persons will ask God to save their family and friends???

I want to comment more on this.

A friend of mine recently wrote the following:

At the end of all conversations, it comes down to what Spurgeon nicely captured as the anti-Calvinist's prayer:

“Lord, I thank thee that I am not like these poor, presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with a power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace as I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know that thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves… it was not thy grace that made us differ… I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”

Src: "Free Will a Slave” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.

Of course, as a man prays, so he believes: Lex orandi, lex credenda

Few anti-Calvinists will admit to Spurgeon's characterization above. I suspect if we were privy to the words they lift up in their prayer closet, things would not as they profess publicly. Getting them to confront the logical conclusion of their positions hopefully, exposes and raises some cognitive dissonance behind their position.

The strange part about all this? Many Synergists will deny what they actually profess in order to avoid any characterization that places their belief system in a negative light. The Latin phrase my friend quoted "Le orandi, lex credenda" roughly means "the law of praying [is] the law of believing". Another way of saying it, "as a man prays, so he is". For instance, if a man privately prays for God to save someone, the man is a Monergist whether he admits it or not. If he was consistent in his theology he would not ask God to violate free will.

 

[Revmitchell]

You are not misunderstanding. If man must do anything in the salvation process, then the process is a cooperative process. I wrote in a previous thread that this cooperation does not need to in equal parts, it just has to exist to be real. So, if God brings the sinner 98% towards regeneration, but the sinner has to bring the other 2% through faith, that is a cooperative act even though the parts are not equal. If you are building a shed but ask me to help you with a hanging the front door, you asked me to cooperate with you in the building of the shed. Sure. You may have done 90% of the work, but you didn't do it all. I can rightly claim that I worked alongside you, or cooperated with you, in building the shed.

If the receiver of the gift must reach out and take the gift from the giver is the receiver of the gift also the giver of the gift?

 

[Yeshua1]

I see we are on page 3, with the Cals defining all the terms, and looking at the issues through their presuppositions. And then we can toss in a bunch of ad homenim posts whose purpose is to disparage.

Lets back up to God making conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, I will relent. Since God establishes the conditional, and determines who, if anyone, meets the condition, God's action is monergistic. God does not need for anyone to repent, and repenting does not cause God to rely upon man. A conditional covenant does not mean God is not all powerful.

On the other hand, you will see posts where Cals claim if God does not compel the repent, God is depending on man's actions.
Such is the absurdity of their argument.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and if God chooses to have mercy on those whose faith He has credited as righteousness, that salvation is monergistic. For salvation does not depend on the person who wills, but on God having mercy. Thus the Cal argument has once again been shown to be unbiblical and unstudied.

Where did saving faith come from, and unless the Holy Spirit enables a sinner to receive Jesus, will and can they on their own?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are not misunderstanding. If man must do anything in the salvation process, then the process is a cooperative process. I wrote in a previous thread that this cooperation does not need to in equal parts, it just has to exist to be real. So, if God brings the sinner 98% towards regeneration, but the sinner has to bring the other 2% through faith, that is a cooperative act even though the parts are not equal. If you are building a shed but ask me to help you with a hanging the front door, you asked me to cooperate with you in the building of the shed. Sure. You may have done 90% of the work, but you didn't do it all. I can rightly claim that I worked alongside you, or cooperated with you, in building the shed.

2 big questions to answer, as these will determine which camp we are in on this issue...
How much did the fall affect us now, and what is biblical free will?

 

[Yeshua1]

If the receiver of the gift must reach out and take the gift from the giver is the receiver of the gift also the giver of the gift?

What if the person being given the free gift cannot freely respond to that offer though?
I say here it is, but you are deaf/dumb/ and blind?

 

[Reformed]

2 big questions to answer, as these will determine which camp we are in on this issue...
How much did the fall affect us now, and what is biblical free will?

The Fall resulted in all of Adam's posterity being born in a state of sin, and at enmity with God from birth. We are sinners for two reasons. 1. We are sinners because we are born in sin, due to Adam being our federal head and acting as our fair and just representative. 2. We are sinners because we sin.

Biblical free will is an imprecise term. While sinners, the human will is in bondage to sin. Once regeneration takes place the human will is freed from its bondage to sin. It then is able to freely choose Christ. That choice is not optional. It is better said that the will of the regenerated individual will trust in Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Fall resulted in all of Adam's posterity being born in a state of sin, and at enmity with God from birth. We are sinners for two reasons. 1. We are sinners because we are born in sin, due to Adam being our federal head and acting as our fair and just representative. 2. We are sinners because we sin.

Biblical free will is an imprecise term. While sinners, the human will is in bondage to sin. Once regeneration takes place the human will is freed from its bondage to sin. It then is able to freely choose Christ. That choice is not optional. It is better said that the will of the regenerated individual will trust in Christ.

I fully agree with you, was just suggesting that those 2 answers will determine if one is which of those 2 positions!