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

[Fin]

The issue is not that we can comprehend God, the issue is can we comprehend the part He has chosen to reveal in scripture. Yes we must struggle to connect the dots without adding our own speculation into the mix.

We must stick with the range of word meanings found in well accepted lexicons, and not redefine words to pour our theology into the text. We must be careful not to add words to expand the revealed scope such as "the things" becoming "all the things" when the text might contextually provide a narrow scope, i.e. some of the things.

Bible study can help us grow and become better witnesses, and more helpful advisors. And if anyone, especially me, makes a claim without providing a reference to a verse or passage that supports it literally, beware.

Not all of us are seminary grads versed in the subtleties of ancient languages or privy to well accepted lexicons. Some of us just read the Bible. I could reference verses that present salvation from the sinner's perspective and verses that present salvation from God's perspective. I always come to the conclusion that any confusion about the process is strictly my own. God has it all figured out and its under His control and every human born will be fairly judged or pardoned. And I do believe that the saints' response to God's gracious pardon in which they give Him all the credit and glory is real and sincere.

 

[Revmitchell]

I always come to the conclusion that any confusion about the process is strictly my own.

Well yours and Calvinists.

 

[Fin]

Well yours and Calvinists.

?

 

[Reformed]

I really expected the tribal guy to be regenerated without any knowledge of Jesus Christ. See because lets say there are four, Two REFUSE to listen to the gospel altogether, Two agree to listen, we can only bet the 2 who cooperated to listen the gospel have possibility of having that regenerative understanding. That's kinda inclusive of a synergism.

Yes. The two who "cooperated" would be an example of Synergism.

Like when you read the gospel they are not tied up with headphones forced to listen the gospel right? Its bit towards their own free will. Imagine we would have to tie everyone up and force them to hear the gospel.

They choose to listen or not. God chooses if they understand or not.

I suppose you can look at "forced" as a negative thing. I tend to look at it differently. Consider this from Biblicist's post earlier in this thread:

In some cases the Holy Spirit uses the natural convicting powers resident in the conscience and His word prior to regeneration that only produce inward misery until that misery is relieved by quickening in conversion (2 Cor. 10:4). Kicking the pricks prior to regenerative conversion is "worldly sorrow" not because it is "worldly" in the sense of "ungodliness" but in the sense that it is from NATURAL causes. Apart from divine quickening intervention worldly sorrow or natural sorrow never concludes in salvation but always in some kind of repression, religious reformation and ultimately death. However, in the elect it is always finalized by godly sorrow that is effectual to salvation.

To say that God forces Himself on poor sinners misses the meaning of His grace. God will use circumstances to bring one of His elect home. A sinner can be under conviction or the direct leading of God, while still not regenerated. If God can command the wind, He can bring the circumstances to bear in the life of a sinner that will expose them to encountering the gospel message. But it is not until the Holy Spirit quickens the heart through regeneration that the sinner is given spiritual eyes to understand.

Look at Joe's timeline, we stuck a pin Joe leaves unregenerated its until 9 years later, after hearing the gospel, after the nagging on the "ONE DAY" regeneration starts.

Did I leave you with the impression that Joe wanders aimlessly for nine years before he is regenerated? I was like Joe when I first heard the Gospel. I did not leave the church regenerated only to come to faith at a later time. I left the church dead and sin but under tremendous conviction. Regeneration happens in an instant; quicker than a snap of the fingers. God regenerated me and then I believed.

 

[Fin]

As far as that tribal person who never heard the Gospel, but yet came to faith, I'm sorry, but those are usually anecdotal stories with important details missing. Romans 10:17 says, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." There is no salvation apart from the proclamation of the Gospel. It may be in written form, sermon audio, or heard over the radio, or even the pulpit -- apart from the Gospel there is no salvation. Romans 1:17, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

FYI: The story of the African tribesman in a remote village that had yet to hear about God was part of a John MacArthur sermon I heard several years ago. The gist of the short autobiography that MacArthur read from was that at some point in the young man's life he became convicted of his sinful lifestyle. Soon after God providentially provided the gospel message and a life was saved. As I remember it, MacArthur used the story to make the point that God saves in the most unlikely places under the must unlikely circumstances. And that He never disappoints the serious seekers.

 

[Iconoclast]

FYI: The story of the African tribesman in a remote village that had yet to hear about God was part of a John MacArthur sermon I heard several years ago. The gist of the short autobiography that MacArthur read from was that at some point in the young man's life he became convicted of his sinful lifestyle. Soon after God providentially provided the gospel message and a life was saved. As I remember it, MacArthur used the story to make the point that God saves in the most unlikely places under the must unlikely circumstances. And that He never disappoints the serious seekers.

Jesus seeks and saves,
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

[Reformed]

God saves in the most unlikely places under the must unlikely circumstances. And that He never disappoints the serious seekers.

Anecdotal stories are so hard to respond to. No one wants to call another person an exaggerator or a liar. I am on record as saying that God ordains the means as well as the end result. Did God send the gospel to this tribesman because of his sincere conviction of sin or because God had elected him (Eph. 1:3) and conviction was part of the process God used? I think you know which way I come down on this. Still, we rejoice that a sinner was saved.

 

[percho]

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

I believe that God is not showing Satan a thing.

I believe God is destroying Satan and the works of Satan. And, "salvation," is the means by which Satan and his works will be destroyed.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

I am a monergist. God does it all and has told us about his work.

That is The G O S P E L.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 PM Pacific.

 

[Van]

Not all of us are seminary grads versed in the subtleties of ancient languages or privy to well accepted lexicons. Some of us just read the Bible. I could reference verses that present salvation from the sinner's perspective and verses that present salvation from God's perspective. I always come to the conclusion that any confusion about the process is strictly my own. God has it all figured out and its under His control and every human born will be fairly judged or pardoned. And I do believe that the saints' response to God's gracious pardon in which they give Him all the credit and glory is real and sincere.

Hi Fin, for the record, I am a "layman." My training in bible study was provided in the discipleship program, and in the leadership taring program, conducted by our teaching Pastor, who held a Master's at the time, and is now holds a doctorate.

As far as access to "well accepted lexicons" they are "on line." Strong's, Thayer's and the NAS Lexicon.

All the so called confusion on salvation comes from our interpretation of Ephesians 1:4. Was this election for salvation individual or corporate? My view is that election, before creation, was corporate, He chose us in Him meaning when God chose His Redeemer, He also in effect chose those His Redeemer would redeem, as the target group of His Redemption Plan. Therefore, when implementing His plan He would choose us individually for salvation through faith in the truth.

Now the problem with thinking Ephesians 1:4 refers to the individual election of foreseen folks with foreseen faith, is that scripture is clear we were individually chosen out of the world (not before the world was created.) In James 2:5, we see those chosen (1) were poor to the world, (2) were rich in faith, and (3) heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. Obviously this refers to being chosen during our lifetime, not before creation. (See also 2 Thess. 2:13, chosen through faith, not foreseen faith, and 1 Peter 2:9-10, chosen to be a people after existing not as a people. Again foreseen is not found.)

 

[TCassidy]

As far as access to "well accepted lexicons" they are "on line." Strong's, Thayer's and the NAS Lexicon.

Strongs! LOL! ROFLOL! Root fallacy and cognate errors galore. Strongs is NOT a lexicon. It is a concordance!

Thayers! Out dated and theologically liberal.

NAS! Nothing but Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary (also out dated), reanimated. Keyed to the Nazi anti-semite Gerhard Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." A serious methodological problem with TDNT is that of illegitimate totality transfer. Etymological etiology is not the same as philological usage. Kittel makes that error over and over again.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one is arguing "on their own"

How are they being abled to respond than?

 

[Revmitchell]

How are they being abled to respond than?

Romans 1:16

 

[Yeshua1]

Romans 1:16

Did the Holy Spirit enable them to be able to respond then?

 

[Van]

Fin, you can count on TC to disparage non-Calvinist leaning lexicons, and provide no alternative on-line lexicon. However, lets take a look at part of a verse using Strong's lexicon.

John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word....

Now from Strong's, we have the transliterated Greek word, and Strong's number.

En (G1722) arche (G746) en (2255) ho (G3588) logos (G3056)...

Now we can look up the word meanings:

G1722 (translated here as In) is a preposition used to indicate a fixed position (in place, time or state) and here the idea is at the time of the event (beginning).

G746 (translated here as beginning is a female noun indicating the first or initial origin of something. Here the idea is creation, with the Word existing at the time of creation, and thus not created.

Fin, with these on line study tools (Blue Letter Bible) you can check word meanings, do word studies, and grow in your understanding of God's word.

 

[Reformed]

It’s been an interesting thread with some profitable interactions. This is a conversation that needs to continue in subsequent threads on the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Revmitchell]

Did the Holy Spirit enable them to be able to respond then?

What does that verse say?

 

[TCassidy]

Fin, you can count on TC to disparage non-Calvinist leaning lexicons,

Please do not lie about what I said nor what I do. A good lexicon is a good lexicon because it is accurate, not because it is "non-Calvinist leaning" or "Calvinist leaning." It is accurate because it is accurate.

Fin:

If you want a good lexicon try Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Zondervan, 2006.

Or, Frederick William Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Or Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (United Bible Societies, 1999).

Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. AMG Publishers, 1991.

Forget this folly of only using on-line resources. They are on line for a reason. They are in the public domain because they are so outdated nobody would pay good money for them.

Spend some money on a good lexicon. Mounce is about $20. Zodhiates about $30.

By refusing to spend such small sums on good reference material you become just another "internet commando." Ignorant of how ignorant you are.

And once you get the reputation of being an "internet commando" you lose all credibility and nobody, except another "internet commando" takes you seriously.

 

[TCassidy]

Did the Holy Spirit enable them to be able to respond then?

I think there is one thing everybody here agrees on is that nobody comes to Christ unless God (through the Holy Spirit) first does something.

Some say that drawing is the conviction brought by the Holy Spirit through Gospel preaching.

Others say that drawing is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

But all agree the Holy Spirit does something to enable the hearer to respond. Where we differ is what, exactly, that "something" really is. And whether or not that "something" is always efficacious.

 

[Van]

Again, Fin, note that TC did not provide any on-line lexicons, and disparaged the use of online study tools. Pay no attention is disparagement posts offering home cooking sources. Yes a book shelf of resources, such more than one bible version, an Exhaustive Concordance, a Bible Dictionary and other study tools certain can supplement you efforts.

But all agree the Holy Spirit does something to enable the hearer to respond. Where we differ is what, exactly, that "something" really is. And whether or not that "something" is always efficacious.

Note the use of the word "enable?" No one can respond to the gospel unless they hear the gospel, therefore hearing the gospel "enables" a person to respond. Everybody probably agrees with that.
But can everyone respond? What about the first soil of Matthew 13. Those folks have been disabled. Thus even if they "hear it" they do not understand and therefore cannot respond. Now the second, third and fourth soils can hear and respond, but not all embrace the gospel with all their heart. Were they unable or did they choose to not engage fully? Food for thought Fin.