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

[Reformed]

No, it is not. God CANNOT violate His own word. IF, as they say, God has CHOSEN to allow faith or rejection then He is compelled to honor His word.

I’m only able to read your side of your response to whoever it is you’re responding to, so let me add my own take. You’re absolutely correct. God must honor His own word. If free will in regeneration is God’s command, the issue is settled. The same is true if God regenerates independent of human choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Reformed]

Exactly the point being argued.

And that is the point. Reformed was not saying God lacks the ability to do so, but that, if He makes a decision that decision is final and not subject to change.

So, if their contention is that God made a decision, that decision stands and God cannot, to be true to Himself and His word, change His mind.

The purpose of this thread was to define terms in order to have a frank discussion without getting hung up on Calvin or Arminius. A certain poster couldn’t get beyond definitions. That’s the frustrating part. If you don’t like the historic definitions I cited, tell me your own. Major fail on that one. I can handle disagreement from someone who is willing to wrestle with the issue and arrives at a different conclusion. We’ll still disagree, but at least there’s a level of respect. I think I cited you. You and I disagree on our lapsarian position, but we disagree honestly, not playing theological hide and seek.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TCassidy]

That is not now, never was, and never will be the "point" being argued.

Go read post #15, which is what my post was in response to.

 

[Fin]

Personally I've never met a Christian, including some who've never heard of Calvinsim or Arminianism, who've taken any credit for their salvation. When the subject of salvation comes up, God always gets the credit and the glory.
On the other hand, my interest is always piqued when pastors who are reputed to be Calvinistic end their services with appeals to their congregants to make public professions of faith.
It seems to me that there are perspectives on the salvation process that the human mind is not privy to. I believe that when we get to heaven this controversy will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction and God's glory.

 

[Reformed]

Personally I've never met a Christian, including some who've never heard of Calvinsim or Arminianism, who've taken any credit for their salvation. When the subject of salvation comes up, God always gets the credit and the glory.

This is your first post on the BB and you jump right into the fray. I think Yoda would say, "Bold you are".

Even the most rabid free will, anti-Calvinist Christian is not going to take credit for their salvation. I am sure they are completely convinced that God did it all and deserves all the credit and glory. But the truth comes in what they believe about soteriology. If you sit down with someone and ask them to explain how the order of salvation works you will learn what they really believe. If they say that they believe God draws but will not proceed further until the individual places their faith in Christ, then they are on the free will side (Synergism). If they respond by saying that God regenerates and then the individual believes, they are on the sovereign grace side (Monergism). Both Christians will give glory to God for their salvation, so I am not doubting either's sincerity.

 

[Fin]

This is your first post on the BB and you jump right into the fray. I think Yoda would say, "Bold you are".

Even the most rabid free will, anti-Calvinist Christian is not going to take credit for their salvation. I am sure they are completely convinced that God did it all and deserves all the credit and glory. But the truth comes in what they believe about soteriology. If you sit down with someone and ask them to explain how the order of salvation works you will learn what they really believe. If they say that they believe God draws but will not proceed further until the individual places their faith in Christ, then they are on the free will side (Synergism). If they respond by saying that God regenerates and then the individual believes, they are on the sovereign grace side (Monergism). Both Christians will give glory to God for their salvation, so I am not doubting either's sincerity.

Some, possibly many or most Christians haven't taken the time to delve as deeply into the subject as you have. They are content to accept God's offer of salvation with "childlike" faith and devote their attention to more practical matters. And as Jesus said, "For such are the kingdom of heaven."
Some of the most spiritual, joyful, hopeful, faithful, loving people I've met have had childlike faith and probably couldn't give you a coherent answer one way or the other. I, for one, would certainly not fault them for that particular shortcoming.

 

[TCassidy]

Personally I've never met a Christian, including some who've never heard of Calvinsim or Arminianism, who've taken any credit for their salvation. When the subject of salvation comes up, God always gets the credit and the glory.

When I was in Seminary in Minneapolis I worked evenings downtown at Midwest Federal Bank. Many of the lot attendants were students at North Central Bible College, a Pentecostal school. I had several discussions with those people who, when we discussed the nature of salvation and I would give testimony of salvation by Grace alone they would insist "You have to do something!"

 

[Reformed]

Some, possibly many or most Christians haven't taken the time to delve as deeply into the subject as you have. They are content to accept God's offer of salvation with "childlike" faith and devote their attention to more practical matters. And as Jesus said, "For such are the kingdom of heaven."
Some of the most spiritual, joyful, hopeful, faithful, loving people I've met have had childlike faith and probably couldn't give you a coherent answer one way or the other. I, for one, would certainly not fault them for that particular shortcoming.

But that is not the group I'm talking about. I don't round up people on the street and wax theological. My OP was directed to the group of members of the BB that engage in theological debate.

 

[Fin]

When I was in Seminary in Minneapolis I worked evenings downtown at Midwest Federal Bank. Many of the lot attendants were students at North Central Bible College, a Pentecostal school. I had several discussions with those people who, when we discussed the nature of salvation and I would give testimony of salvation by Grace alone they would insist "You have to do something!"

Sometimes I think God's Tower of Babel curse exists inside the English language. In one sense we all DO something. We agree with God's righteous condemnation of sin, including our own personal sin, our need to repent, and our need for God's provided propitiation for sin.
I don't believe God saves people who are ignorant, willfully or not, of these truths or others who would disagree with God's diagnosis and prescription. But I did hear John MacArthur once read from a story about an African with a troubled conscience who credited God with providing persuasive resources necessary to make an informed decision about his own salvation.

 

[Reformed]

But I did hear John MacArthur once read from a story about an African with a troubled conscience who credited God with providing persuasive resources necessary to make an informed decision about his own salvation.

I don't doubt that for one moment. While I believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, I also believe that God works in the lives of His elect through various means. While I don't have a specific verse I can point to, I think it is consistent with who God is to say that he saves His elect at the proper time. We know that He saves His elect for the purpose of performing good works (Eph. 2:10). So, maybe it's not just sovereign grace at work, but also sovereign planning.

 

[rsr]

Monergism and synergism are useful labels. Non-Monergists often shy away from the label because, let's be honest, many times Monergists really mean "Pelagian" of "Semipelagian" when they spit out (and often through clinched teeth) Synergist.

One who doesn't is Roger Olson, a classical Arminian who is a professor at Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University.

The essential ideas of Arminian theology about God’s self-limiting sovereignty, universal atonement, grace-enabled free will, are found in the so-called Radical Reformers, especially the Swiss Brethren and Mennonites or Anabaptists. Admittedly, however, Martin Luther and John Calvin, together with most of the so-called “magisterial Protestant reformers,” embraced Augustine’s theology of salvation called “monergism”—the idea that God alone acts in salvation and that sinners being saved are passive recipients of grace whose faith is a gift they cannot refuse. The Anabaptists, Mennonites and others who are the true ancestors of Baptists, embraced “synergism”—the idea that salvation is initiated by God, made possible by God, given as a gift by God, but that sinners who hear the gospel are free either to accept or reject saving grace.

Olson believes that Arminianism is well within the scope of "Reformed" theology and, while he takes every opportunity to smite "Calvinists" hip and thigh, he agrees with them against the de facto Semipelagianism he believes is the de facto soteriology of American Christianity.

While he believes monergists and synergists need not be enemies, he is clear that he believes there is really not middle ground.

...can’t Calvinism and Arminianism be united? Can’t there be a hybrid, a middle ground, a bridge between them? Can’t a person be both at the same time? No, that’s simply not possible. At certain crucial points they are absolutely opposite and any attempt to unite them requires an absurd leap into logical contradiction. Election of individuals to salvation is either conditional or unconditional; it can’t be both. Christ’s atoning death on the cross is either intended by God to be for all people or it is intended by God to be only for some; it can’t be both. Saving grace is either resistible or irresistible; it can’t be both at the same time. On these points, at least, one must choose between Calvinism and Arminianism or, if one wants to avoid those labels, one must choose between monergism and synergism.

 

[rsr]

While I believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace, I also believe that God works in the lives of His elect through various means.

Calvinists, Arminians and Molinists would agree on that.

 

[Reformed]

While he believes monergists and synergists need not be enemies, he is clear that he believes there is really not middle ground.

I concur. I quite forgot about Olson. There are times both sides can come together, especially on major issues that threaten the church, but those times are rare.

 

[The Biblicist]

Look the whole issue is about cause versus effect. No one denies repentance and faith are our responses to the gospel, but the issue is what is the cause for our responses? Repentance is turning from one thing to another thing (mind turning from unbelief to belief; heart turning from love of sin to love of righteousness; will turning from resistance to submission). What turns our mind, heart and will? The prophet says, "Turn us O God and we shall be turned".So it is God's power rather than us that does the turning. This turning power is regeneration while repentance and faith is us turning.

No one denies that our will is involved! However, is our will the effect of regeneration or is it the cause for regeneration (Jn. 1:13)? Did we receive him due to our will being the first cause or His will being the first cause (Jn. 1:12)? I believe that regeneration is the creation of a new believing heart by God's effectual call as illustrated in Genesis 1:2-3 as Paul claims in 2 Cor. 4:6 ("For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts...."). Therefore, faith cometh by the RHEMA or the command of God (Rom. 10:17 not logos) rather than the rhema of men (Rom. 10:18) as the rhema of men produce nothing UNLESS the gospel comes additionally in "power and in the Spirit" (1 Thes. 1:5). Thus by RHEMA (command of God) Christ who is God in the flesh is both "the author" and "the finisher" of our faith (Heb. 12:2) through the effectual call of the Holy Spirit which includes regeneration whereby the human spirit is brought into union with the Living God who is LIFE, LIGHT, LOVE and HOLY. The spirit of man is the object of regeneration and thus partaking of life, light, love and God's holiness. This partaking of life, light, love and holiness establishes the moral state of the spirit which in turn determines the moral inclination of the human heart so that the regenerate man freely chooses to do good (Rom.7:15-17; 19-20) because he "delights in the law of God after the inward man." It is the new birth that creates this "delight" or inclination to do good which becomes the "law of the mind" in a regenerate person so that "to will is present" (Rom. 7:18) to do good, but the power to will good is found only in the indwelling Person and power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:8-13) who works in us "both TO WILL and TO DO of his good pleasure" (Philip. 2:13).

However, the arminian has the unregenerate man more powerful than the regenerate man because he believes the human will in the unregenerate man has not only the will present to do good but also the power apart from either new birth or the indwelling Person and power of the Spirit. He has the unregenerate man willing to do good without any inward good nature or source of good and therefore presents the irrational idea that good can come from an evil tree/heart without any change of the nature of the tree from evil to good. Arminians have an evil tree producing good fruit. Jesus says that is impossible as the nature of the tree must first be changed as the nature of the tree is the CAUSE for the kind of fruit being produced. Jesus says, first make the tree either good or evil as it is the nature of the tree that is the CAUSE of its product (good or evil) - Mt. 13:33-35; 7:15-20).

The position of a monergist is that a regenerated heart is the cause of a heart willing good not vice versa.

 

[Fin]

I concur. There are times both sides can come together, especially on major issues that threaten the church, but those times are rare.

I once attended a Baptist church with a pastor who held, to my of thinking, a pretty reverential view that did no damage to God's sovereignty or man's responsibility. He used an analogy of the gates of heaven. On the arch over the gate facing those who would enter was a sign that read "Whosoever will may come." and on the inside, as those who entered looked back over their shoulder could read, "Chosen before the foundations of the world."
I believe there are things too divine for sinful man's mind to fully comprehend.

 

[TCassidy]

In one sense we all DO something.

Of course. We believe, repent, and obey. But that is the result of His regenerating grace, not the cause of it. To be born again we do nothing. In fact, there is nothing we can do. It is all of Him and none of me.

 

[Reformed]

I once attended a Baptist church with a pastor who held, to my of thinking, a pretty reverential view that did no damage to God's sovereignty or man's responsibility. He used an analogy of the gates of heaven. On the arch over the gate facing those who would enter was a sign that read "Whosoever will may come." and on the inside, as those who entered looked back over their shoulder could read, "Chosen before the foundations of the world."
I believe there are things too divine for sinful man's mind to fully comprehend.

While that sounds good it is a simplification of truths that have already been made known to us in scripture. This mystery is not whether God calls and saves those whom He pleases, it is why He is pleased in saving me (or you). I know without any doubt I deserve only judgment, not mercy or grace. In my sinfulness I would never have sought God. God prevailed upon my sinful heart. I believed in Him after He had already illumined me through giving me a new heart through regeneration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Reformed]

Some people ask why this is important. Any point of doctrine that has been debated for centuries is certainly not unimportant. There must be something greater than the topic itself or else interest in it would have ended long ago. Both sides contend for the truth. Both sides are not right. Prayer is affected based on how we understand God's sovereignty and man's response, as is the promise of heaven. The admins on this board placed this debate forum in its own place, so those who participate in it know what they're getting into. It certainly isn't the only topic worth discussing, but we shouldn't delude ourselves as to the topic's implications in almost all matters of our faith.

 

[Fin]

Of course. We believe, repent, and obey. But that is the result of His regenerating grace, not the cause of it. To be born again we do nothing. In fact, there is nothing we can do. It is all of Him and none of me.

To some Christians, even to some Calvinists, believing, repenting and obeying are the works we are incapable of.

 

[Fin]

I know without any doubt I deserve only judgment, not mercy or grace. In my sinfulness I would never have sought God. God prevailed upon my sinful heart.

prevailed (v) 1. proved more powerful than opposing forces; 3. persuaded (someone) to do something:
Amen.