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

[Reformed]

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?

Great question. I like how the framers of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith dealt with that question:

1689 LBC 10.3 Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The key here is the word "Elect". God is the one who elects and predestines (Eph. 1:3).

 

[The Biblicist]

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

So you admit that man is already confirmed in his choice to reject and resist Christ prior to drawing or else he could choose anytime he wants, Right? Hence, you believe drawing simply TEMPORARILY releases the human mind, heart and will from the power of sin enabling him to make an alternative choice that otherwise could not occur - right? Therefore, in this TEMPORARY FREEDOM from the bondage of sin he is made to SEE CLEARLY HIS FORMER BONDAGE and destiny due to that bondage and yet in such freedom may freely choose to return to bondage? May I ask why the same thing is not possible after choosing to be freed by Christ? Why can't he freely choose to later reject Christ and return to the bondage of sin if the will is free indeed or is the will of the child of God brought into another kind of bondage where no free choice exists?

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.

Where in scripture do you get the idea that "draw" is universal and/or mere enablement to make contrary choices?

 

[Yeshua1]

Great question. I like how the framers of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith dealt with that question:

1689 LBC 10.3 Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The key here is the word "Elect". God is the one who elects and predestines (Eph. 1:3).

And he does based solely upon His own free will and good pleasure, not basing it upon us at all!

 

[The Biblicist]

I think a major part of the problem is a false understanding of "works" in Scripture. When Jesus defined sin negatively he defined it to include the inward deliberating processes of the mind and heart in connection with sinful words and actions:

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts (διαλογισμός dialogismos), murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

In other words, the operation of the will as the deliberative expression of thought and feelings is the inward cause of external words and actions that the bible defines as evil "works." Hence, evil works is inclusive of the inward operations of the human will in addition to its external expressions in words and actions.

So it is inaccurate to limit "evil works" merely to externals because Jesus said if a man says "thou fool" he has entered into the area of evil works that bring judgment upon him for violating the law "thou shalt not murder."

So it is inaccurate to limit "evil works" merely to externals because Jesus said if a man "lusts" in his heart upon a woman he has violated the law "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Therefore, God looks upon the heart because evil works can occur in the deliberative processes of the heart even though the external expressions (words and actions) may be restrained from ever occuring. So the very internal deliberative PROCESS = WORKS.

My point is that the determinative or deliberative process (will) is the source of all external works and therefore that inward PROCESS is "of works" as Christ demands the inward deliberative processes of the heart or choosing evil is what first violates the Laws of God even though no external words or actions reveal it. Therefore, the deliberative or determinate processes (choice) of the mind and heart is "of works" but we are not saved "of works" but "of grace."

 

[Iconoclast]

I want to comment more on this.

A friend of mine recently wrote the following:



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.

My contention is that all true believers are Calvinists but are at different levels of understanding how God works in the spiritual realm.
All who say they are non cals.....agree on many issues.
One might disagree on election, another on Perseverance.
Most on particular redemption. The fact that they lack understanding does not in any way diminish the sure and certain work of God.
In time many will study themselves into the position they oppose at this time. The truth never changes,the people do.

 

[Van]

trying to force your God crediting man idea will not bring clarity...

A predictable ad hominem, devoid of any comment on God's conditional covenants.

 

[Van]

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

I have answered this question more than one dozen times. Why not address the answer? Does Matthew 13 ring a bell?

Again, no address of God's conditional covenants.

 

[Van]

My contention is that all true believers are Calvinists but are at different levels of understanding how God works in the spiritual realm.
All who say they are non cals.....agree on many issues.
One might disagree on election, another on Perseverance.
Most on particular redemption. The fact that they lack understanding does not in any way diminish the sure and certain work of God.
In time many will study themselves into the position they oppose at this time. The truth never changes,the people do.

First all true believers are born anew Christians, siblings of Christ.
Why would any non-Cal agree with Unconditional Election, when scripture teaches we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election.
Why would any non-Cal disagree with Once saved, always saved, which scripture teaches we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit forever.
Why would any non-Cal deny Christ laid down His life for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world?
But I agree, God saves those who love God with all their heart, even if some of their doctrine misses the mark.

 

[Reformed]

My contention is that all true believers are Calvinists but are at different levels of understanding how God works in the spiritual realm.

And this is precisely why I am using the term Monergist in this thread and not Calvinist. Many Synergists are opposed to Calvinism, because of their opinion of John Calvin and the baggage that comes with his name. However, Monergism is a term used to describe an actual theological position. Opponents of Calvinism cannot go on an anti-Calvin rant because Calvin is not being discussed, the actual doctrinal position is being discussed.

 

[Iconoclast]

A predictable ad hominem, devoid of any comment on God's conditional covenants.

Only the Mosaic was conditional. .

 

[Iconoclast]

And this is precisely why I am using the term Monergist in this thread and not Calvinist. Many Synergists are opposed to Calvinism, because of their opinion of John Calvin and the baggage that comes with his name. However, Monergism is a term used to describe an actual theological position. Opponents of Calvinism cannot go on an anti-Calvin rant because Calvin is not being discussed, the actual doctrinal position is being discussed.

Yes....this can be helpful as it diffuses that whole distraction.
I do not like when you try and do that then you get accused of avoiding the labels...lol
So in general I just ride it out and explain the terms.

 

[Iconoclast]

First all true believers are born anew Christians, siblings of Christ.
Why would any non-Cal agree with Unconditional Election, when scripture teaches we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election.
Why would any non-Cal disagree with Once saved, always saved, which scripture teaches we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit forever.
Why would any non-Cal deny Christ laid down His life for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world?
But I agree, God saves those who love God with all their heart, even if some of their doctrine misses the mark.

Why??? Because they study and grow into the truth and not invent novelties as you like to do.
Did you ever notice that no one shares your view? No one. It is not based in scripture.You think it is because you have wrested the verses in a way that everyone but you can see is way off.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have answered this question more than one dozen times. Why not address the answer? Does Matthew 13 ring a bell?

Again, no address of God's conditional covenants.

That passage does NOT support your understanding of it though, and that could be said of nearly all of your understandings of scriptures in regards to Sotierology proper!

 

[Yeshua1]

And this is precisely why I am using the term Monergist in this thread and not Calvinist. Many Synergists are opposed to Calvinism, because of their opinion of John Calvin and the baggage that comes with his name. However, Monergism is a term used to describe an actual theological position. Opponents of Calvinism cannot go on an anti-Calvin rant because Calvin is not being discussed, the actual doctrinal position is being discussed.

If one wishes to discuss "Calvinism", best to go right back to Apostle paul in Romans, and John in His Gospel, as both outlined that theology to us. The irony here is that even Calvin did not really create it, as Augustine had way before Him, and Calvin best shown as father to Presbyterian and not Baptist Calvinism!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

And this is precisely why I am using the term Monergist in this thread and not Calvinist.

That's a distinction important to you, and probably T.C. but not Rev Mitchell, or likely Sapper or any other "Synergist" in your thread...
The problem is your word "CANNOT".
Until you understand why they reject your entire O.P. wholesale, you won't understand the problem they have with it.
It's a REAL problem.

Many Synergists are opposed to Calvinism, because of their opinion of John Calvin and the baggage that comes with his name.

True, but that isn't THEIR objection.

However, Monergism is a term used to describe an actual theological position.

Correct, a moniker you can define and embrace at your leisure.
Their problem is your idea that the only other option is "Synergism" as YOU define it.
Your definition of "Synergism" assumes premises they already reject, and that's why you don't define it correctly.
And I'm quite sure you can find a gazillion Calvinist "Theologians" of distinction, to define "Synergism" that way, and they will deny and dispute every definition you throw at them.
It isn't their "Theological" ignorance they're disputing.....
It's the word "CANNOT".
And you will no doubt still not hear me when I say this and the cycle will continue.

Opponents of Calvinism cannot go on an anti-Calvin rant because Calvin is not being discussed,

They haven't....
But you don't understand why they'd reject your position without mentioning the irrelevant fact that he's a murderous piece of Satanic garbage...
They've said nothing about that.....
but, that's the only objection you can possibly imagine.

That's not their objection...

But, you aren't listening to and understanding them.

It's your word "cannot" they have a problem with, and you still don't get it.

the actual doctrinal position is being discussed.

It's not being discussed, because you cannot step outside of your own presuppositions for less than
10 seconds in order to actually listen to them.

 

[TCassidy]

Until you understand why they reject your entire O.P. wholesale, you won't understand the problem they have with it.
It's a REAL problem.

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

God CANNOT violate His own word.

True.
Also, not the point being argued.
No one denies this

IF, as they say, God has CHOSEN to allow faith or rejection then He is compelled to honor His word.

Sure...irrelevant, and assumed, but, sure, yes, that's true.

 

[Jerome]

a moniker you can define and embrace at your leisure...."Synergism" as YOU define it.

Yes, Reformed aka MorseOp aka Herald (real label stickler there, huh?) started this thread using as a definitional source "monergism.com" !
In post 31 he quotes something he purports is "the dictionary definition" but doesn't say what dictionary.

 

[TCassidy]

Also, not the point being argued.

Exactly the point being argued.

Sure...irrelevant, and assumed, but, sure, yes, that's true.

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Exactly the point being argued.

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

And that is the point. Reformed was not saying God lacks the ability to do so,

No, he wasn't he was denying that "Synergists" affirm God's ability...
That's the lie.
and it makes honest debate impossible, and it's why they reject your claims and labels.

but that, if He makes a decision that decision is final and not subject to change.

Right, Great, God is God, and when God does things, God = God and when Omnipotence = Omnipotence it = Omnipotence.
You're really doing some deep Scripture now...........

*sigh*
God is God.....everyone agrees.
Anything else?

So, if their contention is that God made a decision,

Who is "THEY"?
What is "THEIR" contention????.........
Do you know how to debate in an honest fashion?
I doubt it...
You're so steeped in Calvie debate tactics you don't know how to stay on topic anymore...
Everything you say will be an attempt to re-define parameters of debate.
You probably haven't debated like an honest man in years....

that decision stands and God cannot, to be true to Himself and His word, change His mind.

He changes his mind....but not his Word.
That's Scripture...
That may be irrelevant to you, but he does so absolutely in
Exodus 32:14.

I'm sure you have a way of denying the narrative, but, for anyone who reads Scripture the whole chapter is there:
I encourage all to read it:
Exodus 32:1 (KJV)