Featured Monergism vs. Synergism

I thought the "bone of contention" was whether the Prodigal was a son when he left home or not! Just goes to show!

Incidentally Skan. I am always honest, perhaps not objective, but honest!

 

Why does God choose one? Not because of their faith, but because;

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. Rom. 9:15,18

Above you said, "based on Christ's merit."

Faith, is the merit of Christ by which one is imputed with the righteousness of God which the works of the law could never give.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe (Or, are of faith.: for there is no difference:

How does one be, of faith? Through the faith of Jesus the Christ, Christ's merit and the grace of his Father God, by raising him from the dead, one can be given the Holy Spirit putting him in Christ therefore being, of faith, that is one believing.

Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Your faith therefore would be Christ in you, so done by the Holy Spirit, the hope of glory. That hope being the grace of life (eternal life) applied to incorruptible body at the resurrection/change at the appearing of Jesus. The same grace of life given Christ at his resurrection. For if it had not been given him, faith, that is his death would have been in vain.
1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. Therefore you are justified by grace being justified by faith (the shed blood, death) of Jesus the Christ.

That is the faith to come, the Father before placed Anointed Jesus, in his blood a propitiation (place of mercy)

12strings that should be your understanding of faith in Rom 3:25 in the thread, Would this be;.

 

Where is this faith found though apart from being a Gift from God to sinners?

IF a sinner accepts jesus/rejects Him, would they be the ultimate basis of their salvation?

IF all sinners have equal shot to get saved, as God graces all of us, why wouldn't the one making right choice for jesus be getting reward for what he did right?

IF jesus died for sins of all, God graces all to be able to get saved, does the will of man trump will of god that all would be reconciled and saved then?

 

Thank you for acknowledging my view and recognizing the areas of agreement. That is refreshing...

Maybe, to some degree we do disagree on that point, because I'm actually fine with referring to faith as a gift of God...but I probably define gift differently than the Calvinist, as I see no reason for a gift to be effectually applied in order for the giver to be given full credit for giving it.

It seems to me that a lot of theological baggage has been attached to the word faith. It appears to have become a 'substance' that is bottled and doled out to unsuspecting recipients. But the word simply means TRUST. I like that word because it tends not to have all the systematic jargon attached to it. It is just TRUST.

It's resting in someone else's provision. We can place our trust in men, things, organizations, money, false religions, etc etc. And Jesus openly rebukes men for not placing their trust in God, which strongly implies they can and should do so. Otherwise, it makes more since for Jesus to rebuke God for not giving out more of this 'substance' to those who lack it.

Trust is gift that comes from HEARING and experiencing God and His truth. "Faith comes by hearing..." So, in that since it is a gift of God, but we are still responsible (response-able) to exercise it. We can trade the truth of God in for lies or we can REST in it...TRUST in it. TRUSTING is not a work, just the opposite, it is a REST. It's the Prodigal Son giving up trying and trusting his Father to take care of him in his humility. It doesn't merit or earn anything. It is without value. IOW, the trusting/faithful sinner still deserves hell. It's only the Grace of God and merit of Christ work that saves.

All of this to say, that your explanation of my view isn't really wrong (as I understood it), but I've tried to take it out the 'theological' baggage.

Well that is why the man is held to account. He is RESPONSIBLE because he is RESPONSE-ABLED. A actor determines his acts. A chooser determines his choices. And thus is rightly punished or rewarded accordingly. The only reason anyone perishes is because they refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved and you aren't suggesting God is the one who refuses the truth for them, are you? So, then who is left to refuse or recieve the truth if God isn't the one doing that? The man is.

Word that a bit differently to see it from my perspective: "The 'synergist' position makes man responsible for his own perishing, because he was able to respond...he has no excuses." But because of God's loving and gracious provision, the synergist can still claim that full credit goes to God for taking me back in, reconciling me as his son, even though I deserved to be sent away and to suffer for my rebellion.

Reworded: "In one system God is the determiner and "difference maker" in an individual's rejection of the truth and his perishing." By simply removing the concept of 'irresistibly grace' this dilemma is removed and lost humanity remains truly 'without excuse.' But under Calvinism, unbelievers have the best excuse there ever was: "I was created this way and couldn't do anything about it...I was born unchosen, unloved by my creator, sealed from birth destined to reject his appeals, destined to rebel, and destined to suffer in hell. I hate the one who first hated me."

Correction. God chose to seek and save the lost by sending the appeal for reconciliation to all creation. He chose US first.

 

Just as mankind was in relationship when they fell in the garden, that relationship is being restored to both the Jew (represented by the older brother) and the Gentile (represented by the lost brother). The return of the Prodigal is a prefect picture of RECONCILIATION. It's not about an individual Christian backsliding and then repenting. It's about a people who were once cut off being grafted back in again.

Calvinists, as with most Western thinkers, have a difficult time seeing the corporate perspective in scripture which leads to many errors theologically.

 

Percho and others, I hope my response to WITBOTL also addresses some of your questions and points. If not, please let me know as I am trying to same time. Thanks

 

It is a horrible idea that there is somebody... who can create us sick (as apparently we are) and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again.
-Christopher Hitchens​

 

I apologize profusely Skandelon but I am having trouble with your responses. Does the parable of the Prodigal picture the lost person coming to God for Salvation or does the parable represent the offer of Salvation to the Gentiles. The reason I sak this question is that in an earlier post you refer to the Prodigal as a son who is profusely welcomed back by his Father and

as shown in an earlier post by you [shown below].

 

Enlighten all of us HT, just what does the remarks of a militant atheist have to do with a discussion on this Board.

Scripture tells us:

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

From the above remarks we can draw the conclusion that Hitchens was a fool. So your justification for using his view in this Christian discussion is what?

 

Okay, Brother, say I give you two 30 lb dumbbells. Now, you can look at those three times a week, an hour each day, and still be as weak as you were prior to me giving them to you. You have to work out with them before them become beneficial to you. God grants faith as a gift is absolutely correct, but man must exercise it before it becomes beneficial to him. Just because God gives man something doesn't mean he will put it to good use. IOW, God doesn't irresistibly give us anything. He offers and we either accept it or reject it. One can't exchange the truth for a lie w/o first possesing said truth.

False premise. You show me where someone is "alive" outside of Christ. In y'alls usage of regeneration, there's something else needing finished before salvation is complete....exercising faith. Pre-faith regeneration places an extra "step" in the salvation process, that the Word never ascribes to. When a man believes....exercises said faith, he is then placed in Christ and regenerated. Man isn't regenrated and then given the ability to believe. Y'all have this backwards.

Nope....you're wrong....na na na na na boo boo!! :laugh:

 

One at a time:

Calvinists often turn to Rom 8:7: "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

I agree that we are born in a sinful state that is hostile to God's law and that as long as we remain under the control of that sin nature we cannot please God...in that we cannot ever complete the demands of the law (as this verse states). But does that say anything about the ability of a lost man to hear, believe and repent when confronted with the powerful Spirit wrought gospel? No. It only speaks of man's nature if left to himself. It says nothing of the ability of one to be reconciled by a divine message sent for the purpose of reconcilation.

 

Let's look at the 1 Cor 2:14 text brother:

But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the concerns of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the concerns of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God. We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. 16 For: who has known the Lord's mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ. Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able, because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like ordinary people?


Read through this text again and notice the distinction Paul makes between the natural/flesh people and the spiritual people.

Here is what we can conclude:
1. The Natural man cannot receive these things Paul is addressing
2. The Spiritual man can receive these things Paul is addressing
3. The BRETHREN (believers) are not being "spiritual" and cannot receive these things Paul is addressing

Thus, the "things" Paul is addressing here cannot be in reference to the simple gospel truth (milk) because the "brethren" (believers) cannot receive them.

(more later, got to run)

 

Without God drawing us, none of us would have ever attempted to, let alone, desired, to come to Him. Left to ourselves, we wouldn't come, because we love ourselves too much. Good post.

 

That scripture does not say man is unable to think spiritually. In fact, this passage actually refutes Total Depravity.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Romans 8:9 tells us that a person who does not have the indwelling Holy Spirit is still in the flesh.

If Calvinism's interpretation of this passage is correct, then a man in the flesh without the indwelling Holy Spirit cannot possibly believe. But is that what the scriptures show? NO, the scriptures show the EXACT OPPOSITE, that a man must believe to receive the Spirit.

Scriptures that show a person must first believe to receive the Spirit;

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit by first believing the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question shows he believed that a person received the Holy Spirit as a result of first believing on Jesus.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Paul plainly says here that these Ephesians received the Holy Spirit AFTER first believing the gospel.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter plainly told these Jews to repent and believe on Jesus (for only believers are allowed to be baptized), and AFTERWARD they would receive the Holy Spirit.

All of these scriptures and many more prove that men without the indwelling Holy Spirit have the ability to believe the gospel, and once they do they afterward receive the indwelling Spirit.

Calvinism's interpretation of Romans 8:7 is ERROR.

 

Three major problems with your interpretation:

1. Paul calls the brethren in Corinth 'carnal.' (1 Cor 3)

2. Proving someone is an enemy doesn't prove they can't respond willingly to God's appeal for reconciliation, that's the presumption you are reading into this text because it never actually states it.

3. Not being able to submit to God's law isn't equal with being unable to respond to God's gracious appeal to be reconciled. (see more below)

Inability to do what? Submit to the law and merit one's salvation? We all agree with that as I've said over and over. Again, Calvinists mistake is to presume that because men are unable to attain righteousness by LAW through WORKS that they likewise are unable to attain righteousness by GRACE through FAITH. This verse proves the first and you wrongly apply it to the latter.

Why would you think so little of the powerful, life-giving, Word of God as to conclude that man's fallen nature is more powerful than it? God's appeal would certainly enable a response from whoever he was appealing to. "The truth will set you free!" "How will they believe unless they hear?"

God holds men responsible (response-able) for his response to the gospel appeal, which strongly implies men are able to respond to it.

Once again you have the cart before the horse.

John 20:29: Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.​

Notice the order:

John says, "BY believing you may have life"
Calvin says, "by life you may believe"

 

Nope....his argument is they are behaving as carnal in this one sin[sectarianism]

they were behaving as mere natural men...out of character..

 

Then why would you so badly misrepresent what we believe? Either you need to be taught what we believe or you need to stop purposefully misrepresenting us. We do not believe one merits salvation (which by definition is 'works based salvation.') Read WITBOTL's post as at least he is willing to acknowledge this basic truth.

When the Calvinist protests as to why God has made the Arminian unwilling to accept his dogma, should we respond, "Who are you ol' man to question the maker?" For it can only be referred to as MY 'steadfast refusal' if MY doctrine is correct, but if Calvinism is correct then its God's ordained will to withhold from me the grace by which I would accept this 'truth.' IOW, stop questioning God and be a consistent Calvinist.

An accusation that I challenge you to make a case for... quote where I misrepresented Calvinism and then correct the misrepresentation... (I won't hold my breath)

Do you mean the argument that WITBOTL understood and affirmed in his first reply by simply acknowledging that we do not affirm a merit/works based salvation? Hmmmm