Monergism vs Synergism

"But do you know the limit of it? Christ hath bought a "multitude that no man can number." The limit of it is just this: He hath died for sinners; whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him; whoever seeks Christ, shall know Christ died for him; for our sense of need of Christ, and our seeking after Christ, are infallible proofs that Christ died for us." ---CHS

 

Here again, you have man making a choice that without he decision to choose positively WILL NOT be saved. You STILL have man participating in his salvation so it is not 100% of God.

And here we see a false teaching revealed as is in a few Cals theological understanding.

God saves us first and then we believe. Yet Jesus states "believe and be saved". The apostle states that we are justified, sanctified, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, righteous and IN Christ, by faith - not before we believe. All of these are what make up the regeneration. Without them one is not regenate no matter how you want to parse it.

 

I will post to you on the above a little later, I have to take my family down to Arkansas due to a family members placement into the hospital and in serious if not life threating position. However I to enjoyed out discussion and agree with your 'Side Note'. Thank you for the respect and kindess to me in your posting. God bless you richly as He fulfills He purpose and plans in your life for His glory brother.

 

Salvation is all of God. He first gave men the information about Salvation in the gospel. The number one means of man's ability to understand.

Then He was raised up on the cross drawing all men unto Him. Some men rebelled against the drawing and this is man's only choice "to rebel".

God sent the preacher to preach the gospel to men. Some men listened and some rebelled and wouldn't listen.

Christ chose to die for the whole world no man took His life but He laid it down willingly that men might be saved.

If men listened at least passively they may become convinced yet some men even though they listened as did Agrippa in the book of acts still chose to rebel even though they were nearly convinced.

If man is convinced he then believes but, is still not saved yet because he must exercise that belief by placing faith or trust in Christ. He does this in surrender. Surrender is giving up control. It is allowing God to have control over our lives.

Some say the last is decision, but for me it was the only way I could go because I had already reached the bottom. The only way to go after that was up.
For me this is an all of God Salvation.

God provided His Word
God provided the sacrifical lamb atoning for my sins
God drew me to Him
God convinced me through all the above
God allowed me to reach the bottom on my own
God gave me only one way out.

Some say well I could have rebel even more and that is true but when I became convinced of Christ I didn't see any benefit in it. It would only keep me on the bottom.

On the bottom I hated myself. I couldn't stand to look at myself and the mess I had made of my life.

I understand why some believe it's there decision. To choose a life of sin or a life of justification. By choosing not to sin they assume they are choosing Christ. The choice isn't Christ or not but to rebel or not. It isn't Christ or rebel. If man must, then make your choice a surrender. Without which there can be no Salvation.

MB

 

No.John 12:32 matches up with John 6 perfectly.Everyone drawn is savingly united with Christ.So when you read John 12:32 you have to understand that the "all" are His elect only -- people of all sorts -- not the entire human race,past,present and future.

This half-way drawing business is not biblical.You're not the only one teaching it --but it's scripturally wrong.

He laid down his life for His sheep alone.He loved and gave Himself up for the Church alone.The people whose names are registered in the Lamb's Book of Life are the very same ones who Christ died for -- no one else.

Imagine that! "Allowing God"! Puny mortals will "allow God" to do this or that.That kind of thinking flies in the face of Scriptures which say He does anything He wishes and that people can't thwart His will.Get biblical!

 

Rippon as I told you before on another thread our conversation is over. You may not like that but that's the way it is. I will not discuss theology with you any longer.
MB

 

Because he didn't change a man only indicates that the man rebelled. It doesn't mean that it wasn't God's intention to convince the man and convict him. This is God enduring the vessels of wrath by allowing man to rebel instead.

It's not what Bob does but what Bob doesn't do. Bob's only choice is to rebel or not to rebel. If Bob doesn't rebel Bob has done nothing to stop the process. Bob becomes convinced and convicted and the conviction drives Bob to his knees in repentance and surrender to God. The whole process is all of God however there is no regeneration before surrender Unless you're willing to admit that being regenerated, is being saved, but if you admit this is true then you'll have to admit that being saved happens by grace and is always through faith. If it is through faith, then man can't be saved with out it. No faith, no Salvation, No faith, No regeneration. This is the gospel truth.
MB

 

Feel free not to converse.I will still respond to error from your keyboard.

And for those of you who don't know -- on another thread I had made a passing reference to C.H.S.And because of that grave sin MB said:"Try trusting in God instead of old dead men."I told him that was dishonest.It's actually a lot worse than merely being dishonest on his part.

 

The reason I said "Try trusting in God instead of old dead men." is because you certainly do not adhere to scripture but you do the saying's of old dead men. Particular election isn't in scripture yet you still falsely claim that it is. You said I'm being dishonest. That's really ironic because it is you who has made a false claim and you can't prove it to be true. You present Jacob and Esau when there story had nothing to do with Salvation but was instead a choosing of a nation. Not to mention I never called it sin. You did that yourself.
MB

 

I have listed plenty of Scripture to refute your ideas.Some of the biblical texts which I furnished for you were brand-new to you.

The Bible speaks over and over on the subject of election.Eph.1:4;Matt.24:22,24,31;Luke 18:7;Ro.8:33,Ro.9:11;2Tim.2:10;Titus 1:1 are just some examples.I'm just warming up.

Your false claims notwithstanding --the Holy Word of God is true and anyone (that includes you) who is against it opposes God.

 

I have a few questions about this topic since I'm not versed in it.
Did God dictate the bible or was there participation?
Did God just appear as a man or did he have Mary participation for the incarnation?
Did God spread his word or was their participation with the Apostles and christians since?
Did God raise up rocks to create the nation of Isreal or was there participation through Abraham's faith?
Did God deliver Israel from Egypt apart from Moses' participation?

In any of these events does participation limit God's control in the events of human affairs or diminish his supremecy over creation.

Why would salvation be any different?

 

Nothing you presented refuted anything but about what you claim to be true. None even hinted at your claims. Just scriptures that you've obviously been taught that they support your claim by someone who is biblically illiterate.

Not one of these support particular election. Election is real I don't deny that but I do deny it being particular

Your the only one in this conversation who opposes what God's word says by adding your own words too it.

 

I then have two more questions for you.

Do you equate salvation with Justification or do you view salvation as a totality of the the christian experience? I'm leaning toward the latter which would mean that I have no part in justification but do have part in the rest of my salvation. Ie work out your salvation with fear and tremebeling.

If salvation is narrowed to just justification wouldn't that make many bible verses inadiquate?

 

I have gone to the Scriptures and they certainly support the doctrines of grace.You deny the doctrines of grace.At least you are very clear bout that which you deny.

Then you deny biblical election.

What words have I supposedly added?

Agreed.Stop it.

You keep on bringing up that nonsensical claim.Romans 9 does not bear that out.

Only the elect are saved -- no one else.Only those whose names appear in the Lamb's Book of Life -- written before the world began.

Spoken like a tue Semi-Pelagian.BTW,you have no idea what Calvinism is --Just like Ben.And you haven't a clue what hyper-Calvinism is.You need to read more.Read the Word of God in context.Read Church History.Read more so that you will not type foolish things.

Too bad.When you ask the Lord for guidance He may grant you to see that which is very evident to Calvinists as lovers of the Word of God.

 

Reformer, to answer your questions from your previous post I will start by saying that if there is a perseived difference it seems to me that it lies in semantics. When you say salvation it seems I have to take in context what you mean. Here is my example:

Each item listed is a specific of Salvation or one aspect or detail. I would say all three are salvation. So when God in eternity (I view as outside time space so in the past, present and future but many others would say before the world and indeed its true as far as it goes) chose me to be saved. Indeed he did so with out my participation. But that is not salvation it is what some would call election, which is just a part of salvation. One aspect. That aspect as indeed the totality of how I understand it is based on grace (or undeserved favor). When God laid down his life for me He did so without my specific participation. However, if you ever heard the statement "if you were the only one on earth God would lay down his life for you" it automatically assumes that you would have to crusify him, since there is no one else. In that senario did you participate? (that was just a side bar). However, I did not participate in condeming or crusifing the Lord yet he allowed the Pharasees to condemn him and the Romans to crusify him. So the Roman who said "surely, this is the son of God" (if he was ever saved) may have been a free agent used as an instument to bring about an act leading towards our justification. Justification is also salvation (I had no part) but alone it is not salvation it is another aspect. But provided for by grace. Now here is the aspect that seems to be the hing for many. Faith. I believe. How is this possible? Well, I did not give it to myself. God prompeted me and worked with me my entire life and brought me to the point of decision (God or other). He gave me the faith to believe (without my participation). God offered and the only reasonable responce to faith is acceptance (almost like I did nothing which is true but it isn't in the sence that I chose. I think there is a mystery here. A cooperation with God which is part of my salvation) or another aspect of Salvation. I think that to say I was justified and I believed actually limits salvation to one point in time (another side bar). Or only relates one aspect of salvation and unintentionally it is presumptive. I (emphasis on I) believe. It almost sounds like "I am the master of my own destiny". I chose; which hinges salvation entirely on me and my ability to choose. I disagree. I would say I couldn't help but to choose. And the only reason I could do so to begin with is because of grace. (which is outside of me). But this is not salvation entire either just another aspect. What are we saved unto? Well, the biblical answer is works. (what you call sanctification which is a good term). So I do participate in that which could never have occured with out all the other things I mention. And then even in that I could not do the good works apart from the grace that allows me to do them. But does that diminish my particpation. No. Does my participation limit Gods soveriegnty? No. So rightly, I am honored by God (crowns?) for my particpation. Yet, I am right to lay them down at God's feet for he allowed me to participate. We are Joint heirs in his kingdom which by necessity means the kingdoms deeds as well. This is also grace. But this again is just another aspect of salvation (a reward of it for salvation entire is a gift and to be wished for even in suffering as we can see with the apostles). Then there is eternal life. That is also salvation. So, the fact I'm justified allows for the reward of eternal life like the theif on the cross (no works involved on his part). Yet as I have attempted to explain they are aspects and I would say the theif lost (or could not participate) the other reward of deeds and self sacrifice as the apostles seem to understand as such. So salvation entire is all that I've mentioned yet each aspect is also salvation. It's a laymans attempt to explain something that mystified people better than I for centuries, indeed, millenia. Not that I understand it perfectly. I don't and I'm at a disadvantage with you since I do not have your educational background. But that is how I understand it.

So it is true to say as you did with regards to the quote in this post but I would say salvation is bigger than just that. Actually I am considering the details of Justification which is quite the task as well.

So your question here:

Is based on a wrong premise. Getting to conversion is done by God. or better stated God gives you faith. Justification is also done by God. But the results of these things are also salvation. So faith without works is dead. So salvation without works is an intrinsic imposibility. Just like you are justified but don't recieve eternal life? That also is an intrinsic imposibility. Salvation without either of these is pointless. Salvation is the purpose of scripture and so I say the entire christian experience is salvation. To limit it to one or two aspects makes us god rather than the almighty. Salvation entirely considered is completed by Grace.