What Side Of The Fence Are You?

[Marcia]

No, the poll results are 20 Monergists to 4 Synergists.

Okay, thanks. I'm not surprised due to how the question is worded. The terms are biased.

Marcia, do you believe that the human will cooperates with the Spirit in the new birth or do you believe the Spirit works independently of the human will in the new birth?

I believe what the Bible says: God draws men to Christ and man must respond.

It really cannot be presented any simpler than that.

The terms are biased towards those who think that man is regenerated before salvation.

 

[kyredneck]

....I believe what the Bible says: God draws men to Christ and man must respond.

Then you clearly should have voted synergism. The vote would now be 5 (S) to 20 (M) had you voted.

The terms are biased towards those who think that man is regenerated before salvation.

How?

Honestly, I'm really befuddled. I put it as simply, concisely, and unbiasedly as I knew how.

Please, tell me how the terms are biased towards those who think that man is regenerated before salvation.

Which doctrine do you believe? No comment necessary....

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

I honestly don't know how I could have put it any more 'delicately'.

Marcia, please, if you would, reword the question(s) (only two choices) in the manner you think it should been presented. Perhaps then I'll understand

 

[Marcia]

Then you clearly should have voted synergism. The vote would now be 5 (S) to 20 (M) had you voted.



How?

Honestly, I'm really befuddled. I put it as simply, concisely, and unbiasedly as I knew how.

Please, tell me how the terms are biased towards those who think that man is regenerated before salvation.



I honestly don't know how I could have put it any more 'delicately'.

Marcia, please, if you would, reword the question(s) (only two choices) in the manner you think it should been presented. Perhaps then I'll understand

The terms are biased because they are not in the Bible; they are manmade. And I think one side came up with these terms and defined them.

No, I won't reword it with only 2 questions. I said before and I still say that there should always be an option of "not sure," "neither," or "other."

The way God saves is a mystery to us because it involves the nature of God. There is no way for us to dissect how God saves, but that is what you are trying to do.

 

[kyredneck]

....there should always be an option of "not sure," "neither," or "other.".....

Yeah probably so with a lot of polls, but this is basically a yes or no/ true or false proposition. IMO, one should be sure enough in their own convictions to be able to answer a yes or no question.

...and the question concerns how, not when, regeneration occurs. Is it with or without man's cooperation?

 

[sag38]

How about a little of both. I can see legitimate arguments for both. Of course many of the doctrine of grace fans always poo-poo this seeming contradiction but I'm perfectly comfortable resting on the fence.

 

[David Michael Harris]

I must admit that maybe I do not understand the whole meaning of Synergism or the consequences that I may have voted that way.

I just went by the words in the initial poll question.

Neither words are biblical anyway.

 

[Jerome]

Neither word biblical?

I Cor. 3:9
we are labourers together (synergoi) with God

And one can find the words monergism/monergist in the Bible if one gets it mixed up with one's deluxe leatherbound edition of Elder Hassell's screed History of the Church of God, from the Creation to A.D. 1885.: Including Especially the History of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association.:laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

Neither word biblical?

I Cor. 3:9
we are labourers together (synergoi) with God

And one can find the words monergism/monergist in the Bible if one gets it mixed up with one's deluxe leatherbound edition of Elder Hassell's screed History of the Church of God, from the Creation to A.D. 1885.: Including Especially the History of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association.:laugh:

Jerome, are you Primitive Baptist? I am, and I own and cherish Elder Hassell's book. Much, much good info contained therein.

.......and thanks for your input.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Neither word biblical?

I Cor. 3:9
we are labourers together (synergoi) with God

And one can find the words monergism/monergist in the Bible if one gets it mixed up with one's deluxe leatherbound edition of Elder Hassell's screed History of the Church of God, from the Creation to A.D. 1885.: Including Especially the History of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association.:laugh:

Ok, explain that a bit more on lay man terms

I think maybe your plowing the ground too deep here.

 

[kyredneck]

How about a little of both. I can see legitimate arguments for both. Of course many of the doctrine of grace fans always poo-poo this seeming contradiction but I'm perfectly comfortable resting on the fence.

Thanks for commenting Sag.

Several years ago I enjoyed some good natured debate on this subject with a much loved brother and friend of the family who was an IB Pastor (killed in an automobile accident) and in a flustrated moment he said, "Larry, I actually believe it's both ways!", which I guess at the moment I thought it was just his polite way of saying 'I don't wish to debate about this any longer'. Maybe he was on the fence like you.

Although I don't understand how it could be both ways, perhaps I should have included a third option of undecided, or don't know, or doesn't matter, or 'on the fence', etc..

(there Marcia, I admitted it. Happy now? )

 

[psalms109:31]

Farmer

I have always seen it this way. God provided the seed and the water if we don't plant or water than nothing will grow. It takes both if not then nothing will grow. If a farmer did nothing with what God gives him, he will not have a plant. If we did nothing with what God gave us then we would not have salvation.

It is not by grace that we are saved alone, but it is grace through faith in which this faith is given to us by God through His word. You can walk away and not be saved. You have only two roads to go to, through the word of God to believe and be saved or not and be condemned.

 

[Marcia]

Thanks for commenting Sag.

Several years ago I enjoyed some good natured debate on this subject with a much loved brother and friend of the family who was an IB Pastor (killed in an automobile accident) and in a flustrated moment he said, "Larry, I actually believe it's both ways!", which I guess at the moment I thought it was just his polite way of saying 'I don't wish to debate about this any longer'. Maybe he was on the fence like you.

Although I don't understand how it could be both ways, perhaps I should have included a third option of undecided, or don't know, or doesn't matter, or 'on the fence', etc..

(there Marcia, I admitted it. Happy now? )

Yes, I'm happier that you admitted this. Thanks.

I, too, see that it is both ways. I've heard an illustration that as we enter heaven, there is a sign facing out that says, "You believed in Christ." On the other side, after you get in, it says "Chosen by God."

I may have the details not quite exact, but it was something like that.

However, I do not think we are regenerated before belief, however the Lord may be drawing us. Regeneration is being born again and being dwelt by the Holy Spirit. I do not see that happening before one has trusted Christ.

 

[kyredneck]

How about a little of both. .....

....I, too, see that it is both ways.......

“ You can't have the butter, and the income from the butter, and the smile of the dairymaid.” - old French expression

......or sumthin along those lines.

Does this statement make sense?:

I worked very closely in cooperation with my parents to bring about my birth, yet I had absolutely nothing to do with it at all, they did it.

 

[Marcia]

No human mind will ever harmonize sovereignty and free will; but ignoring or downplaying one or the other in the interest of a supposed harmony will solve nothing. ~ Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, page 311

That pretty much sums up where I stand.

 

[Skandelon]

I have a question for all of you who voted for Monergism. Since God is acting "independently" what exactly does the scriptures mean when it talks about God patiently waiting, and his long suffering toward sinners? What is he waiting on if he is acting independently in salvation? Himself?

Please explain. Thanks

 

[Marcia]

I have a question for all of you who voted for Monergism. Since God is acting "independently" what exactly does the scriptures mean when it talks about God patiently waiting, and his long suffering toward sinners? What is he waiting on if he is acting independently in salvation? Himself?

Please explain. Thanks

Still no answer?

 

[kyredneck]

I have a question for all of you who voted for Monergism. Since God is acting "independently" what exactly does the scriptures mean when it talks about God patiently waiting, and his long suffering toward sinners? What is he waiting on if he is acting independently in salvation? Himself?

Please explain. Thanks

Still no answer?

Skandy, Marcia, I had actually intended to address this topic/passage deeper in a future thread, but I'll go into it some now. I've briefly touched upon this in another post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1494358#post1494358

The passage referred to is:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9

To properly understand and apply this passage one must follow this rule:

“The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.” C. Hodge

Fact: Modern day, 'mainstream', pre-mil, dispensational, Christendom chooses to focus on the fantastical sensationalism of futuristic speculation and tends to ignore or reject fulfilled eschatology (preterist view). Unfortunately, this error negates the immense significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and the wrath which came upon 'that generation', and the 'consummation of the age' of the Mosaic Law, which carried a curse, and ended with the 'severity of God' being poured upon it. As a result, many passages which have their significance, proper understanding, and meaning within the confines of the immediate audience to whom the scriptures were addressed are misunderstood and woefully misapplied to the covenant of grace. For example, that pesky lil' problematic passage to eternal security, Heb 6:4-6, which was addressed to a Hebrew Christian audience (prior to 70AD) :

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1473753#post1473753

Modern day, 'mainstream', pre-mil, dispensational, Christendom, with it's lopsided emphasis on things to come, grossly misses the significance of Gal 2:7-9, i.e., “that I [Paul] had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision”. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter to the Jews.

Peter is addressing a Hebrew Christian audience in 2 Pet 3:9 prior to the terrible judgments of the 66-70AD War, and Mauro hits the nail on the head when he states that, “God, in marvellous forbearance and goodness, did not execute His righteous judgment upon the nation at once, but gave them a final period of probation, which lasted just 40 years, from A.D. 30, when the Lord was crucified, to A.D. 70, when the city was destroyed and the nation exterminated.” Indeed, God was longsuffering to those children of His amongst the Hebrew, not wishing that any should perish in the wrath that came in that terrible war. It's really just that simple.

 

[Amy.G]

Peter is addressing a Hebrew Christian audience in 2 Pet 3:9 prior to the terrible judgments of the 66-70AD War, and Mauro hits the nail on the head when he states that, “God, in marvellous forbearance and goodness, did not execute His righteous judgment upon the nation at once, but gave them a final period of probation, which lasted just 40 years, from A.D. 30, when the Lord was crucified, to A.D. 70, when the city was destroyed and the nation exterminated.” Indeed, God was longsuffering to those children of His amongst the Hebrew, not wishing that any should perish in the wrath that came in that terrible war. It's really just that simple.

John Calvin's Verse Commentary
2 Peter 3:9

9. But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 1

But as the verb χωρὢσαι is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.

 

[kyredneck]

John Calvin's Verse Commentary
2 Peter 3:9

9. But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 1

But as the verb χωρὢσαι is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.

Two things Amy.

Why is a free willer like Amy. G referencing Calvin?

I don't agree with John Calvin on this passage. I think he had it wrong, as has the majority of Christendom down through the ages.

Originally Posted by kyredneck
Peter is addressing a Hebrew Christian audience in 2 Pet 3:9 prior to the terrible judgments of the 66-70AD War, and Mauro hits the nail on the head when he states that, “God, in marvellous forbearance and goodness, did not execute His righteous judgment upon the nation at once, but gave them a final period of probation, which lasted just 40 years, from A.D. 30, when the Lord was crucified, to A.D. 70, when the city was destroyed and the nation exterminated.” Indeed, God was longsuffering to those children of His amongst the Hebrew, not wishing that any should perish in the wrath that came in that terrible war. It's really just that simple.

 

[Amy.G]

Two things Amy.

Why is a free willer like Amy. G referencing Calvin?

I don't agree with John Calvin on this passage. I think he had it wrong, as has the majority of Christendom down through the ages.

I quoted Calvin because you are a Calvinist, right? You are going against the teachings of Calvin. Maybe you're not really a Calvinist after all? What else might he have been wrong about? Election?

:smilewinkgrin: