Featured Monergism vs. Synergism

But does his exercising of faith merit his salvation or not?

I have to call you out on that one. Election may be unconditional in your system, but salvation is not. Faith is required for salvation, so you still have man participating, even if they are doing so in response to a regenerative work of God.

Sounds cooperative to me. Being irresistibly cooperative versus freely cooperative doesn't change that faith is still something men 'exercise.' Brother, you have to include 'merit' in your understanding of works to avoid this issue.

Yet, I've actually built a case on the idea of works being meritorious where as you've presumed (without proof) that merit isn't involved, and broadened the term to contain 'anything' which has made you unwittingly include your own view of faith.

 

Not really, you changed your interpretation of the parable. Compare your response from post #24 and from post #36.

Had to go to some trouble to contrast your different responses to the same Scripture but consistency has its virtues!

 

And there are no scriptures to support that.

 

EXACTLY, which is the same in our view as yours. Now you are getting it.

So faith becomes meritorious in the synergist system? Is that what you are claiming because that is what you are saying when you use those words. Work = Meritorious

Finish the sentence Herald. I said you may affirm election is unconditional but salvation is still condition upon the man exercising faith in Christ...and I think you know it.

But even you admitted it must be exercised by the man and by that act alone you have violated your own erroneous definition of works based salvation. Own it or admit that works includes the concept of merit, so that you too can deny a works based salvation.

Do you think I don't understanding the difference between monergism and synergism simply because I reject your definition of works? I was a monergists for a good part of my life...I get it. You don't have to keep explaining the order of salvation over and over. We are now talking about WORKS. Okay?

works = meritorious

You can affirm or deny this truth. You definition ignores it and since you won't correct your definition I can only assume that you have chosen to deny the truth of this statement. That is unfortunate and contradicts the teaching of even those of your own system.

 

Let me try this using another approach one more time:

Did the Prodigal Son merit or work for the reception he got from his Father when he decided to leave the pig sty and return home in disgrace? Did he deserve or in any way earn being given a ring, a party and being restored as an heir? Did he WORK for that?

I think your answer, if you're objective and honest when answering, will reveal that our view in no way promotes a works based salvation.

 

"Works" is always a reference to the OT law, it is never in reference to just any old action of men.

 

Correct. This is the greatest pit fall of the Calvinistic system.

They assume that because the bible teaches that mankind is unable to attain righteousness by LAW through WORKS that they are equally as unable to attain righteousness by GRACE through FAITH.

They prop up this faulty premise by attempting to somehow equate FAITH to a meritorious WORK of man, by which he earns or deserves God's favor and saving grace. What they fail to understand is that no amount of FAITH, whether given effectually or exercised freely, earns or merits anything. It has NO VALUE in and of itself. Faith in God is WORTHLESS unless God, in His GRACE, chooses to credit to our account righteousness based on Christ's merit.

 

Speaking of the Monergist, Saul/Paul;

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

Was he at that moment a believer or an unbeliever? My answer, an of my sheep unbeliever.

Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Same question and my answer now is a believer for he a sheep and heard the voice of Jesus and followed him. Acts 9:5,6 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

That was surely a spare of the moment change of mind for the thinking man Saul/Paul, wasn't it?

Is there a record of any others in the group with Saul being called/saved at this time?

 

I'm not seeing any inconsistency brother. You're going to have to spell it out. I have said and always believed that the parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates God's work of Reconciliation with the world.

I reject your notion that the lost coin, lost sheep or lost son represent the backslidden believer. Lost humanity is referred to in the salvation process as being redeemed, reconciled, restored to a 'former' status not because individuals were once saved then in need of being brought back into right standing, but because mankind (in general) is needing to be reconciled or restored to their right relationship with their creator.

 

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

And yes they were backslidden.

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

The prodigal son and yes also lost.

Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

God had called them not my people and scattered them.

Hosea 1:9 Then said [God], Call his name Loammi: for ye [are] not my people, and I will not be your [God]. Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations,

They are among the Gentiles living as pig eating Gentiles.

Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure 9:17 My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations.

Does God reconcile some as a people for his name?

Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

Just as God seeked out Paul he will seek the others he calls also.

For a purpose.

 

Skan, I understand how that you are saying that faith is not meriting salvation. Actually, as you rightly point out the two sides do not differ much on faith itself. However, we do seem to differ on the source of faith. As I understand your view (please correct me if I am misstating your view) man's faith is stirred by the prevenient grace which is given to many men (all?) Some men reject that prevenient grace and do not put their faith in Christ and are condemned for it. Others, put their faith in Christ and God credits that (non meritorious) faith for righteousness and saves him. So, in this sense man is saved by a faith that is stirred by the prevenient grace of God, but it is inherent in him and a part of his human nature. In other words all men have the ability when stirred by the grace of God to respond positively in faith. Some choose not to by their "libertarian free will" (not controlled or influenced by their sin nature and therefore neutral due to prevenient grace) The source of the faith itself, however is all of man and is a natural part of man. The faith is not meriting salvation, it is simply the required and missing ingredient which God needs/wants/requires before he will save the man. In other words God does something (Saves him) after man does something (believes)

Question: after the man is saved do you believe the saving faith continues as it was when he was dead as a natural part of him, or do you believe it is changed somehow when a man is saved? I am assuming you believe that that faith which is accounted for righteousness must continue in his new life in Christ.

A key difference in the two basic positions is that the difference between a lost man who believes and a lost man who rejects the gospel lies solely in the man himself. Both men receive the stirrings of prevenient grace. Both men have the ability to choose faith. Regardless of calling it meritorious or not, one does something very very bad (rejects the gospel) and one does something very very good (accepts the gospel and believes) and God has nothing to do with the difference. In this sense, the "synergist" position makes man responsible for his own salvation. I didn't say it makes man save himself, because God does the saving, but the responsibility is solely man's. In one system God is the determiner and "difference maker" in an individuals salvation and in the other man is the determiner and difference maker in his salvation. In one system man must choose God (first) in order to be saved by grace, in the other God must choose man (first) by grace. In one view God's will can only be accomplished through the free choice of man and God can (and does) only do so much. In one system a dead man must choose to live and a dead man responds first then lives. In the other view the dead man is made alive by grace being alive, responds by grace through a living faith.

With respect to the Doctrines of Grace faith is also accounted as righteousness. Faith is also the response of man, and it is also a requirement (but not a cause) of salvation. In other words life comes through faith but is not the cause of it. God is the cause of it through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and the meritorious work of Jesus. Man's faith is also accounted for righteousness. Man also responds in faith and non meritoriously does something. The difference is that man does something (believes) after something is done to him (regeneration). In this view repentance and faith are inseparable graces both accompanying salvation and both "acquired" by grace alone. In other words true repentance and saving faith are attributes or fruits of a living and changed heart (I am sure you know this fact to be a scriptural view whether or not you agree with the Doctrines of Grace ie. Gal 5:22) Because of this understanding we also understand that a dead man cannot have saving faith. If he did he would not be a dead man. Just as there is no life without faith, there is no faith without life. If you have a man being regenerated on the basis of or in response to his faith do you then have him possessing true saving faith for a time without possessing life?

The whole point of the monergism/synergism dichotomy is not so much about whether faith is meritorious, but that man "cooperates" in his salvation effectually through a faith that arises within himself. The cooperation is in that the response of faith is not motivated according to the election of God, but solely by his free choice. While God does all the heavy lifting, there is a key salvific role on man's part that stands outside the work of God. This independent role is what makes it synergistic.

As a practical matter though, we both believe that when a Philippian jailer asks us "what must I do to be saved" the theologically, soteriologically, evangelistically, biblically correct response to him is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." None of us say "come back when you have been regenerated and I will tell you." None of us say "Its not up to you so don't even think about it. If your elect you'll be saved and if you're not, there's nothing anybody can do for you." I don't believe any of us on either side think that if we can trick somebody into saying a "sinners prayer" regardless of their understanding of it, conviction of sin, or any kind of concern for their soul, if we can get them to say it we can count the nose and start collecting the nickel. If we take either position then we are in grievous practical error and regardless of the truth of our soteriology we cease to be the means by which men are saved and become another instrument for their destruction.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

That is not what I said.