Monergism vs Synergism

Be very careful here. I don't like your definition of synergism. I think one can be monergistic and still believe in human responsibility.

 

When someone gives you a gift this Christmas, are you devoid of any participation in the entire process? Will you have worked for your gift? Are you the one who gets the credit for receiving the gift?

Scripture clearly teaches both monergism (salvation is all of God) and synergism (choose you this day...)

 

Not sure I understand, as both camps share in the ability part. Where we differ is to whom the ability is given Any way you look at it, if God has given everyone the ability to have faith, or the extra-biblical "saving faith" given to the "elect" only, we are still responsible for faith in Christ, else God is believing for us which doesn't save anyone!

 

False presupposition of what dead in sin actually means. We are also called to be "dead to sin". Are you unable to sin?

 

Strawman. Quite ridiculous, actually.

No difference, but how you choose to interpret it...which is eisegesis. Dead is simply separation. In sin, we are separated to God. As believers, we are to be separated to sin.

I thought the topic was monergism / synergism?

 

Reformer, consider this quote:

Would you consider this viewpoint monergistic or synergistic? Do you agree with this quote or not?

 

Jonathan Edwards

Thanks for playing along.

 

Then by your own definition you are a synergist as are all those of the sovereign grace doctrines. I say this because evey person who holds to the sovereign grace doctrines believes whole-heartedly that man freely believes in Christ. This 'believes' is important to understand because no man is saved apart or seperate from this action on man's part. Thus in order that a man might be saved (whether Monergist or Synergist) you have man cooperating (to an extent) in his salvation because without man believing no man will ever be saved. Thus a necessary and biblical cooperation is in fact part of the salvation process.

The ONLY way a person can be a true monergist is if God eternally saves man apart from man's having to believe (or apart from faith - which is a Primitive Baptist view)

Then I would encourage you to examine Rom 4:3-6. Faith is not a work and never is to been seen as such.

Again, the same delima is in Monergism. You can not and will not be saved until 'your' decision to believe is made but that decision is still yours to freely make. You are saved by grace through faith. It is this part of your view that can not be properly explained - that it is all of God but man can not be saved unless he believes. Even if the Cals view were true that God gave you faith, the desire to be saved, understanding - We find that in the end He still does it all so that 'you' will believe and be saved. Your salvation is still dependant upon you believing. Thus you can not and will not be saved apart from you choosing to believe whether in Monergism or Synergism. Therefore man IS responsible to believe because without belief/faith you can not be saved. God's bringing man to that point of decision is all God, no question. God saving man is something only God can do, thus again, all of God. However excersizing of faith is that to which man is responsible. Faith does not save a man grace does but it is through faith that grace imparts salvation. There is no value whatsoever in faith of itself, the only value faith can have is that to which it clings. In other words - It is the object of faith that gives faith any value.
(ie. saving faith gets its value not in the faith itself but it's value come from the object or one who will save them. ) Thus saving faith is only different from what is called common faith due to the object to which said faith has been placed, and that difference alone make it a 'saving faith'.

What make them differ? Simple, their choice.

Be careful of such a question because it leads to a hyper double predestination view. How so you might ask? Because if God made one to believe then by virtue of said question He also made one NOT believe.

If you are refering to the scripture 'who makes you to differ' (1 Cor 4:7) as the basis for your question, then you are using that passage as a proof-text which is of course always out of context. The context, per Paul, refers only to believers and this question is never once used to describe the differences between unbelievers and believers. This is significant since we know Paul is the one using it to descibe why believers differ one from another but he never uses this question as a contrast of believer against unbelievers.

Wrong. Most false religion are works ( + maybe some mercy) = salvation

Synergism is grace + faith = Salvation

This is monergim in short and it just so happens to be synergisms too
Man (even in Monergism) is cooperating with God, they just have tried to reduce it as best they can but the problem is that they can not remove it without it becoming heretical.

Because Synergism is found through out the scriptures. However I think it is the Calvinists defintion of synergism that is the problem (remember they made the word and definition up regarding theology), most specifically the word 'cooperation'. If by this you mean that man has a part to play in the process of eternal salvation then they would agree based upon the 'responsibility of man / faith'. See, even in this senerio man does not save himself nor determine to be saved but is placing his faith in the truths God has revealed and save that man. This equals no work but trust in His grace. Faith is not exchanged for anything but trusting in the grace presented to do what God said He would.

If by 'cooperation' you mean that God has done what He can and now it is up to man to save himself. This equals a works based salvation that is only partially dependant upon His grace. That is a semi-pel view. It makes places a 'value' upon faith and make it monitary in the sense that faith is exchanged for salvation.

 

There is no valid biblcal reason to equate Lazarus death and resurrection to being "dead in sin". No one, not Jesus or any apostle ever alluded to, or specifically used it as such. In fact if we were to use it then Cals would have a trouble-some time with Jesus own words concerning the account. "He who believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.". I use this to say that each side can abuse this to be an illistration of their view. But this story has nothing to do with being dead and ability regarding spiritual aspects.

This is true. However one IS telling us the state we are in, and thus 'dead' TO sin. According to your definition if we ARE dead to sin then we would have no ability TO sin. But in this Paul is showing that even in a particular state (dead spiritually) of whether being 'in' or 'to' one does have ability. The real question is when does this ability transpire or become active?

If there is a choice or the freedom to choose at any time (whether to a limited group or not) then synergism is explicit. However, there is an abundance of scripture and to set them out here would pretty much be over kill for anyone. But I will give some - His grace (previent) is that He reveals himself to all men (Rom 1-3 otherwise there would be no knowledge there is a God even amounst the heathen), that Christ lights every man that comes into the world (John 1) , the Holy Spirit is sent out into the world to convict the world (john 16:8), the gospel is to be sent out to all the world and preached to every creature (Mat 28:19-20).

No man deserves any of the above and so for God to reveal Himself and spiritual truths, and Christ to illuminate, and the Holy Spirit to convict, and the gospel offer to be genuinely given to all men everywhere - this is grace pure and simple. Then comes the question that must be asked - Why is this grace given?

 

Reformer, here is what I find troubling about monergism. You guys are SO adament that salvation is "God-only", yet you will agree with a statement like the one I quoted which, in some sense, says that man is a participant. It works like this: You define your postion in a way that I find troubling. When I probe a little, you soften your definition in a way that I can tolerate. Then a couple of days later I see you post on the BB defining your terms as you did originally.

Consider these options:
Salvation is 100% God and 0% man.
Salvation is 0% God and 100% man.
Salvation is 100% God and 100% man.

You guys state your position like #1. NOONE holds to #2! When I probe, I discover that you actually agree with #3, yet you continue to state #1.

 

Dr. Bob, you say God does it all 100%. But please read Edwards statement again

Edwards, and surely Edwards would be considered a monergist, says God does all and we do all...in different respects. Edwards statement recognizes shades of meanings and degrees of meaning in theology. You will repeat your point of view again, no doubt, and yet you will refuse to disagree with Edwards. You say God does all, but Edwards says God does all AND man does all. Is Edwards wrong? If so how? Have you figured out something that Edwards, widely regarded as the most brilliant American theologian of all time, did not know? If so what?