Featured Terms speaking of God and Man's role in Salvation

Back to the subject of the OP:

This is about terms...
If we cannot even agree on those, then there really is no point to this exercise.
To me, "Synergism" should be obvious:

noun: synergism
the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.
"the synergy between artist and record company"

It is co-operation.
In "soteriology", it would mean God doing one thing or set of things, and relying on men for the remainder.


"Monergism" should also be obvious, at least to me.
God does it all, and man simply reacts ( in synergy ) to what the Lord has done ( in monergy ) with the necessary evidences that will be there by the power of His Spirit and the newness of a changed heart.

 

This statement is why I reject the term. It is false. Who supports this except reformed folks who made up the definition.

 

Yep, terms like "calvie" are much more useful.

 

What definition of Monergism are you using?

 

It comes down to resistance. If something can be resisted, then...

 

The real question: In the millennial kingdom, when we know the truth, are we going to be continually ribbing one another about our prior dogmatisms?

 

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
32 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." ( John 8:31-32 ).

 

It's a direct take from a common word used by men:
syn-
a prefix occurring in loanwords from Greek, having the same function as co- (synthesis; synoptic); used, with the meaning “with,” “together,” in the formation of compound words (synsepalous) or “synthetic” in such compounds (syngas).

Syn- = Co-
-Erg = Work, operate.
-Ism = System, practice.

Therefore, "syn-erg-ism" is the same as "co-operation", which means a system of "working alongside of", or "taking an equal part in"; It's a system of working where both sides are doing the work.

...as opposed to "Mon-erg-ism".

Mon- = "Mono" - One
-Erg = Work
-Ism = System or practice.

Therefore, "Mon-erg-ism" is the same as "operation", which means a system of working where only one side is doing the work.



So, in an engineering sense, we have two terms that could be used to describe two "theological" systems, or ways in which salvation is accomplished by God, do we not?
You may reject it if you wish, just as I reject your use of the term, "Calvie" to describe how I view the Biblical truth of salvation being entirely of God, start to finish.

A suggestion:

In the absence of the term "synergism", I'd appreciate knowing what term would be acceptable to you, that would describe a system of salvation where God waits on men to choose to accept His Son, thereby rewarding them with eternal life.


I know of other terms, but I want to use one that is both acceptable to you, and one that all here will accept the use of.
Since we both differ very greatly on how we see God accomplishing it, how can we express the two differences in terms that are acceptable to each other?

 

I have never used the term calvie to describe anything about you. Further, any characterization that says i believe God sits around waiting on me for anything is doing to be wrong. That characterization is not only a pejorative but it is intended to belittle what folks like yourself disagree with.

 

Context Dave. Christ was not saying no mysteries and difficulties would persist. Do you believe you know all theological mysteries?

 

Question:
Do you believe that God's children cannot understand His words to them?

Is in-depth and long-term study rewarded with understanding, or do they continue on in their errors, never learning to rightly divide it?

 

I'm not belittling you at all, Mark.

I just happen to strongly disagree with your view of how and why God saves a person.
I'm also searching for a term that you feel comfortable with, in order to describe how you see salvation actually working.

 

All of them? No, I'm continually learning. I've changed on some things over time. Peter admitted some of Paul's teachings were difficult.

So I'm curious if you're claiming theological perfectionism.

 

I'm claiming what I stated in my prior post to you.
To me there's only two ways a person can understand His word:

"Ever-learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth",
or
"Growing in knowledge and grace".

 

Me too! But surely you believe you'll gain more wisdom in heaven, seeing much more clearly at that time. My guess is, we'll all marvel about some of the things we were sooooo sure about.

 

I'm sure we will.

But my question is, and will continue to be, "why do so many I meet think it's impossible for believers to actually understand all of His words, when those words are intended for us?"
I'd like you to think about that for awhile, because I'm not sure you're getting my point.

 

I don't know because I don't really like to think that.

I think many could ask the same about you (and me for that matter). It's easy to smugly claim you have all the answers right now. But you may find that some of those you're looking down on may have a better understanding than you.

This we know. The heart of man is deceitful above all else. I'm very reluctant to dismiss my own ability to self deceive.

 

Nothing smug about it.
I don't claim to have all the answers...

What I'm saying is, God's people can understand His words.
This should be no shock to you, yet it seems to be one.

Why is that?

I don't look down on anyone, Cal.

I'm a dirt-poor sinner saved by grace.
But I do take comfort in His word, and I do believe it...every bit of it.

If I have any understanding of it, it's by God's grace and His grace alone...
the same thing anyone else on this board should be standing on.

Yes, it is...but God has changed my heart.
I'm not here to deceive anyone.

What I'm attempting to do, is to get people to question what they've been taught, by going back and looking hard at what God's word says.