Back 'atcha. You're just not getting it. I feel like I'm conversing with a brick wall. There's nothing wrong with citing other sources in a debate. The 1689 LBC, and R.C. Sproul, did not say anything different than what I was saying. I thought maybe some more polish than what I can provide may have made better sense.
I'm not going back through the thread to pick out your errors, not do I expect you to do that for me. I think we know the areas in which we claim the other either isn't getting it or in which we disagree.
Hey! No need to go back and find an example. Here it is! Synergism turns faith into a work by cooperating with God in salvation. It's the Semi-Pelagian error all dressed up. You can speak of grace and salvation being of God all you want. Synergism puts the onus on man, not God. In fact, Synergism limits God. It does so because it does not sufficiently understand the new birth; it does not sufficiently understand pre-faith regeneration. And I'm not saying that you are saved by works. If you are saved, you are saved by the grace of God, and your faith is a gift from Him. There are no works involved. It's how you part and parcel faith, preceding regeneration, that warps your understanding of it. I can go on, but it will just be the both us running after the other in circles.
Monergism vs. Synergism
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Herald, Dec 16, 2012.
Page 6 of 8
-
-
Skan,
This is where I say that the thread has served its purpose to flesh out the differences between Monergism and Synergism. It's not up to us to settle the issue. It's enough that the differences have been articulated. I pray God uses such interaction for His glory. -
-
Election does have one condition. That condition is God doing the electing.
Faith is a work of grace in the sinner's heart, accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and it is an integral part of the ordo salutis. It must be present in salvation, but it does not exist on its own. It follows regeneration, it does not precede it. That is the main difference between your view and mine; between Synergism and Monergism; between Semi-Pelagianism and the Doctrines of Grace. Faith is not a work under Monergism because it follows the Spirit's work of regeneration. Faith is like a germ inside a seed. God plants it at regeneration. It's incubation period is immediate. It blossoms, flowers, and produces fruit in that instant (John 12:24). I know you'll follow this up accusing me of turning faith into a work of man, but that simply is not true.
-
Originally Posted by Skandelon [post #36]
Where the subsequent parables of the lost sheep and lost coin likewise not really about 'the lost' but just the backslidden?
If so, why then did the father say, "He was once dead but now is alive?"
This illustrates the concept of RECONCILIATION. Mankind as a whole is being reconciled back to relationship with their creator (Father). More specifically, the prodigal represents the Gentiles living in rebellion and the older brother represents Israel living in religion, but both missing out on the relationship that only comes through grace.Click to expand... -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite SupporterHerald said: ↑continued from my previous post...
It all comes down to the Synergist believing that regeneration follows faith, not precedes it. The Monergist believes scripture teaches that regeneration precedes faith. Faith then becomes a natural work of regeneration; or regeneration matured, if you will. It is something man does, but he has been gifted by God to do it through regeneration. Try as you might to accuse the Monergistic view of turning faith into a work, it is Synergism who does that by making faith precede the work of the Spirit.Click to expand... -
Herald said: ↑Salvation is based on Christ's merit as the perfect Law keeper and acceptable sacrifice for sin.Click to expand...
Faith becomes a work in the Synergist system.Click to expand...
Election does have one condition. That condition is God doing the electing.Click to expand...
Faith is a work of grace in the sinner's heart, accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and it is an integral part of the ordo salutis.Click to expand...
It must be present in salvation, but it does not exist on its own. It follows regeneration, it does not precede it. That is the main difference between your view and mine; between Synergism and Monergism; between Semi-Pelagianism and the Doctrines of Grace.Click to expand...
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. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"Works" is always a reference to the OT law, it is never in reference to just any old action of men.
-
Revmitchell said: ↑"Works" is always a reference to the OT law, it is never in reference to just any old action of men.Click to expand...
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. -
humblethinker said: ↑Yeah, I think those people were the ones who had already believed based on Paul's preaching the first time he spoke there. So, when what they initially believed was confirmed they were excited.Click to expand...
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? -
OldRegular said: ↑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!Click to expand...
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. -
Skandelon said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
Skandelon said: ↑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.Click to expand...
Really, Skan. Try and understand the text a bit more. -
Revmitchell said: ↑And there are no scriptures to support that.Click to expand...
-
Skan,
I'll correct the rest of your misunderstands this evening. Right now I have to leave for the day. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite SupporterHerald said: ↑Of course there isn't. If the Synergist had scriptures to support his view I doubt that he would hold to them.Click to expand...
Page 6 of 8