Monergism and Synergism

None of your choices reflect my opinion so I cannot vote in good conscience.

 

Here is the biblical statement and position.

IF YOU will confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved. For with the heart man believes and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

IMHO, monergism minimizes the availability of salvation to all who hear the gospel and denies the simplicity with which it is received.

 

Allan has already answered this question by pointing out that it is the wrong question. All people have faith in something. The question of salvation is whether a person's faith is in the proper object: Jesus Christ.

Wow! Is this language from a monergism website? Can you show me where they say this? I am not aware that monergism says that man participates in salvation. Frankly, man's participation in his own salvation is more scandalous than saying that man cooperates in his own salvation!

 

Yup. jdl has "foot in mouth" disease. :laugh:

jdlongmire I want you to think about this: What is the difference between YOU proposing to your wife and Christ "proposing" to His bride, Eph 5:32 -- to unbelievers before they are saved? Between you being engaged to your wife and "I have espoused you to one husband [Christ]," (2Cor 11:2) of Paul, what's the difference? Did your wife-to-be and the Corinthians not know their "betrothed?" Did they not make their decisions WITHOUT compulsion from you/Christ? Did you and Christ allow them to choose or did you and Christ "bewitch" them to "espouse?"

skypair

 

Sky,

I'm glad you brought this wedding up for it is a great example of monergistic salvation.
Not how you tell of the wedding, but how a wedding came about in Bible days. I think if we look at this we ALL will see clearly salvation as it is seen in the Bible.

There were some weddings that want outside the rules and customs of that day, but for the most part It was the groom that made the choice of his bride. The bride really had no say so in the covenant. After a young lady caught the grooms eye and he wished to marry her, he would set a betrothal. This was done with a marriage covenant. The groom would ask the brides father to marry her, and not the bride. Most of the time, the bride had no idea of the meeting till a "deal" was met. The deal was how much would the groom need to pay (an mohar) in order to marry the young lady. Once the deal was set, the groom must pay that price before the marriage covenant was established.

This is what Jesus meant when he said..""This cup is the new covenant in my blood".

I'm sure you can see salvation in this story. Christ the Groom, and the bride is the elect of God. God the Father plays the father fore it is the Father that the bride owes. Christ ask what will it take? The Father says, If you give me your life with the taking of your blood on the cross and she(the elect) is yours for you then have paid the price. Christ dies on the cross and as soon and the bride is His.

Now..A little side note. The wedding in the Jewish world did not take place for a year. In some cases it was longer then a year. But the bride still belonged to the groom the whole time.

Now that my friend is a pure picture of salvation. It is also monergistic.

 

James,

You've finally piqued my interest. :laugh: I remember Jacob and Leah, Jacob and Rachel. They apparently knew each other pretty well and I'd have to agree that the marriage to Leah was "monergistic" and brought about by the worldly "system" in Midea. Not so sure but what Rachel was consenting/willing even before the "proposal," though.

Far clearer to me is the example of Eleazer finding Rebecca for Isaac. In that story, Eleazer (as the Holy Spirit) "persuades" Rebecca (in another country and sight unseen) to wed his master's son. This story and the story of Rachel appeal more to the "synergistic view" of 1) the bride's knowledge of her betrothed and 2) her consent to the arrangement. I tend to think of Mary and Joseph that was as well even though Mary was very young. In these cases, the prospective bride was not 2 years old, for instance.

And you were right that I was thinking more about current custom when thinking about the "great mystery, Christ and His church." I don't comprehend how one is "made willing and irresistibly" accepts the relationship within her own heart unless, like Herod "almost" was, she is "persuaded" like Rebecca -- unless she "owns" decision.

skypair

 

Actually, the apostles thought He would "at that time claim His kingdom" but it turned out that He would do so only if Israel would accept Him.

It was only when He was about to be crucified that He pointed us to the "new covenant of His blood" whereby if we intentionally partook, we would enter into it. We must willingly, purposely, and NOT "irresistibly" (as Calvin required in Geneva) choose to put that cup of His sacrifice to our own lips.

Well, I think you know this if you think about it. The Lord's Supper is no more a "monergistic" work than the spiritual event that it represents -- trusting Christ as Savior.

skypair

 

Once again, can you substantiate this statement from material on a monergist website? I would be shocked if you can.

 

JD,
The quotes you link to speak of a person's participation with Christ. This is a passive idea. However, you said that a person participates which is an active verb. If salvation is all of God in it most literal sense, than a person cannot participate in his own salvation. Your buddy on the board you linked to warned you that, while HE understood what you are saying, your statement could be problematic. I think he is correct.

If you say that salvation is all of God, it is no different to say that man actively participates than to say that he cooperates.

I think all of this is really getting down to semantics. The point I have sought to make is the point made by Paul in Romans. Man MUST believe and He MUST confess Christ. Man's salvation is conditioned upon these responses. It seems that you position speaks a language that denies this, then agrees with it when confronted and modifies its language.