|
|
Post by Obadiah on Aug 30, 2022 9:34:59 GMT -8
Monergism and synergism are comprehensive theories in regard to the meticulousness of God’s control in the world. Monergists believe that everything that occurs happens according to the will of God’s eternal purpose. (You can hear this in the New City Catechism’s answer to Q2: “What is God? A: God is the creator and sustainer of everyone and everything. . . . Nothing happens except through him and by his will.”) Synergists believe that God has chosen to limit his control, giving creatures the ability to determine at least some of the outcomes in creaturely history. Only monergists are compatibilists, because compatibilism asserts that God’s meticulous control of history is compatible with human moral responsibility. By contrast, synergists are necessarily incompatibilists. They think that if God determines all outcomes then creatures have no moral responsibility. Not all monergists are compatibilists, because theistic fatalists assert that God is meticulously in control but they often deny human moral responsibility. Evangelical monergists are all compatibilists, but in order to maintain the compatibility of divine determination with human responsibility, many (most?) of them describe human freedom as not libertarian. They asssert (following Jonathan Edwards, for instance) that we act responsibly if we act willingly, without coercion. It is not necessary that we could have done otherwise than we do (i.e. that we have libertarian freedom). In fact, most compatibilists deny that such is the case. Consequently, soft-determinists often speak of “compatibilist freedom.” This is a bit misleading, because Thomas Aquinas was a monergist (believed in meticulous divine control) but he also affirmed libertarian freedom. Following John Martin Fischer, I call that “hard compatibilism,” and I call the compatibility of divine determination and the creaturely freedom of spontaneity “soft compatibilism.” It would be nice to be a hard compatibilist, because people in western cultures characteristically assume that genuine freedom is libertarian. Outside of Thomism, however, hard compatibilism seems rare. J. I. Packer may be a hard compatibilist, but he simply appeals to mystery, he does not try to define how it works. It is, he says, an antinomy, but it is not a paradox (or contradiction in terms). So compatibilism and monergism are not exactly the same thing, though they often go together. Similarly synergism and libertarianism are not exactly the same thing because Aquinas (and probably Packer) put monergism and libertarianism together. www.thoughtstheological.com/monergismsynergism-compatibilismincompatibilism-and-the-nature-of-human-freedom/#:~:text=Only%20monergists%20are%20compatibilists%2C%20because%20compatibilism%20asserts%20that,all%20outcomes%20then%20creatures%20have%20no%20moral%20responsibility. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2022 8:26:44 GMT -8
Monergism and synergism are comprehensive theories in regard to the meticulousness of God’s control in the world. Monergists believe that everything that occurs happens according to the will of God’s eternal purpose. That is incorrect. Monergism is a soteriological position, not an all-encompassing theology. Neither does monergism negate human volition as a necessary part of salvation. The easiest way to understand monergism is simply by understanding the distinction between conversion, or regeneration or being brought from life to death...... and all the rest of salvation. The reason this is important is because monergism teaches our volitional agency is severely compromised until we are regenerated, liberated from the corrupting effects of sin, and brought from the slavery of sin to the slavery of righteousness. God converts. God alone regenerates and He does so based solely upon His will and His purpose and anything whatsoever having to do with the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner. AFTER He has brought that creature He has saved by His might alone He then expects, inspires, empowers, and collaborates with the creatures then-liberated will and work and vice versa. In other words, monergism is interactive after conversion. Monergism is not robot theology. So, the op is wrong. Don't discuss incorrect representations of things because it doesn't matter what that thing is - whether it is monergism or any other ~ism - debating a misrepresentation is always a straw man, a logical fallacy and..... the Holy Spirit does NOT argue fallaciously. In other words, on every occasion in which we enter a straw man debate - whether intentional or unknowingly - we have left behind the Spirit. The Spirit doesn't argue fallaciously, falsely. The Spirit argues truth. Therefore, get the truth of a position correct first. Or, if a person is already biased against a position, at least get that error stated correctly. That's what we find in the OT prophets, the gospels, and the epistolary. We don't just find it in word; we find it in method, too. Monergism teaches the only thing we bring to our salvation is our sin, not out sin-enslaved or momentarily liberated volition. AFTER we are birthed anew from above only then can we and are we involved in working out our salvation with God as the author and finisher/perfector of our faith. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2022 14:06:37 GMT -8
Two things to note as a follow-up. First, in discussing this op what we'd really be discussing it Tiessen's views of monergism v synergism (I'm confident some synergists will take issue with some of his commentary about synergism just as I have about his view of monergism). Second, I enjoyed Tiessen's article on divine determinism versus self-determinism, as well as the one on 4-pt and 5-pt Calvinism. It's worth noting as a Cal, Tiessen himself acknowledges he holds some different povs than the classical Cals he's studied. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 4, 2022 17:20:50 GMT -8
God in Acts 2 gave the Jews instructions on how to be saved (Repent and be baptized, v38) but it also took obedience on part of the Jews to obey those instructions to be saved.
Salvation is not possible apart from God's words/instruction and salvation is not possible apart from obedience to God's words.
There is an obvious synergism between God and Man in man's salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Sept 4, 2022 20:35:24 GMT -8
Monergism and synergism are comprehensive theories in regard to the meticulousness of God’s control in the world. Monergists believe that everything that occurs happens according to the will of God’s eternal purpose. That is incorrect. Monergism is a soteriological position, not an all-encompassing theology. Neither does monergism negate human volition as a necessary part of salvation. The easiest way to understand monergism is simply by understanding the distinction between conversion, or regeneration or being brought from life to death...... and all the rest of salvation. The reason this is important is because monergism teaches our volitional agency is severely compromised until we are regenerated, liberated from the corrupting effects of sin, and brought from the slavery of sin to the slavery of righteousness. God converts. God alone regenerates and He does so based solely upon His will and His purpose and anything whatsoever having to do with the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner. AFTER He has brought that creature He has saved by His might alone He then expects, inspires, empowers, and collaborates with the creatures then-liberated will and work and vice versa. In other words, monergism is interactive after conversion. Monergism is not robot theology. So, the op is wrong. Don't discuss incorrect representations of things because it doesn't matter what that thing is - whether it is monergism or any other ~ism - debating a misrepresentation is always a straw man, a logical fallacy and..... the Holy Spirit does NOT argue fallaciously. In other words, on every occasion in which we enter a straw man debate - whether intentional or unknowingly - we have left behind the Spirit. The Spirit doesn't argue fallaciously, falsely. The Spirit argues truth. Therefore, get the truth of a position correct first. Or, if a person is already biased against a position, at least get that error stated correctly. That's what we find in the OT prophets, the gospels, and the epistolary. We don't just find it in word; we find it in method, too. Monergism teaches the only thing we bring to our salvation is our sin, not out sin-enslaved or momentarily liberated volition. AFTER we are birthed anew from above only then can we and are we involved in working out our salvation with God as the author and finisher/perfector of our faith. Maybe I've been wrong to think this, but to me, since apart from him we can do nothing (and several other similar scriptural statements), monergism necessarily includes all of a person's Christian growth. Synergism necessarily implies quite a bit more than simple 'cooperation'; it implies a value added by man to God's work, as though God's work is not sufficient of itself for salvation. Monergism then, most obviously concerning regeneration and therefore salvation, faith and repentance, is also the cause of obedience and all results of the new heart the Spirit works in us. It is still the cause of all that is good. We cannot add to, or improve on, what God has done. So Sanctification is also accomplished by God alone. To me this, also, is in complete keeping with the Gospel and the grace of God, though admittedly it is less a stark and obvious thing than with regeneration. To my mind, this has everything to do with John 17 and so many other places where it seems to me obvious, that apart from him we ARE nothing, and that he is our very sustenance. "Our unity with Christ is the very definition of our being", does not sound to me like a hyperbolic statement, nor untrue. We are not even complete creatures until we see him as he is. As for Obadiah's representation that monergism has to do with all things, particularly with God's meticulous control of all things, I agree that logically it works down to that, but that it is not the claim of the reasoning referred to as monergism. Monergism may not be the right word to use for the meticulous control of God over all things, but the logical fact that first cause is necessarily the beginning of all things in every particularity with which all facts and events develop/come to pass, means that everything makes sense. But to deny it, is to invoke the illogical (self-contradictory) notion of causation by chance. Chance cannot determine who becomes saved, nor who grows in Grace, nor, for that matter, any choice made by unbelievers, nor indeed who will choose Jif over Planters. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 5, 2022 4:58:02 GMT -8
RC Sproul says sanctification is synergistic below :
We’re saved by grace alone and justified by faith alone, but having been saved, we don’t just wait around to die. Christianity is about spiritual growth as well, and spiritual growth involves effort—the hard work of sanctification. We manifestly don’t work for our regeneration or our justification. Both acts are monergistic, accomplished by God alone. Only the Holy Spirit can change our hearts. Only the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness of the Son of God secured by His perfect obedience to the Father, can secure our right standing before God. Sanctification, however, includes our efforts. We say it is synergistic because both God and we are doing something. Yet, we aren’t equal partners. God wills and works in us according to His good pleasure so that we progress in holiness (Phil. 2:12–13). But as God works in us, we work as well, pursuing Him in prayer, relying on the means of grace—the preached Word and the sacraments—seeking to be reconciled to those we have offended. There’s no shortcut for sanctification. It’s a process, and one that all too often seems overly plodding, with progress taking years to discern.https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/no-shortcuts-growth
hope this helps !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 5, 2022 5:13:29 GMT -8
Thanks for all the replies to the OP. They will certainly motivate me to do a deep dive Into The difference between Monergism and Synergism. Which is the reason for my coming here, to study things out and to learn new things in my faith walk.
I'll start here:
EVERYONE’S A THEOLOGIAN AN INTRODUCTION to SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY By RC
The word monergism contains the prefix mon-, which means “one,” and the word ergon, which means “work,” so monergism indicates that only one does the work. Synergism contains the prefix syn-, which means “with,” so synergism has to do with cooperation, with two or more people working together. Thomas Aquinas framed the question this way: is the grace of regeneration operative grace or cooperative grace? In other words, when the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner, does He contribute only some power, such that the sinner must add some of his own energy or power in order to bring about the desired effect, or is regeneration a unilateral work of God? To put it yet another way, does God alone change the heart of the sinner, or does the change of heart rest on the willingness of the sinner to be changed?
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 5, 2022 5:29:33 GMT -8
Thanks for all the replies to the OP. They will certainly motivate me to do a deep dive Into The difference between Monergism and Synergism. Which is the reason for my coming here, to study things out and to learn new things in my faith walk. The PO ? purchase order 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 5, 2022 5:30:33 GMT -8
Heading to the golf ⛳️ course early today to get away from the heat 110 today . I’ll check in this afternoon:)
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 5, 2022 5:44:35 GMT -8
Thanks for all the replies to the OP. They will certainly motivate me to do a deep dive Into The difference between Monergism and Synergism. Which is the reason for my coming here, to study things out and to learn new things in my faith walk. The PO ? purchase order 😂 Yes I'm going to place my order For some Monergism With a little Synergism On the side. Have fun at the golf course!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2022 6:00:21 GMT -8
That is incorrect. Monergism is a soteriological position, not an all-encompassing theology. Neither does monergism negate human volition as a necessary part of salvation. The easiest way to understand monergism is simply by understanding the distinction between conversion, or regeneration or being brought from life to death...... and all the rest of salvation. The reason this is important is because monergism teaches our volitional agency is severely compromised until we are regenerated, liberated from the corrupting effects of sin, and brought from the slavery of sin to the slavery of righteousness. God converts. God alone regenerates and He does so based solely upon His will and His purpose and anything whatsoever having to do with the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner. AFTER He has brought that creature He has saved by His might alone He then expects, inspires, empowers, and collaborates with the creatures then-liberated will and work and vice versa. In other words, monergism is interactive after conversion. Monergism is not robot theology. So, the op is wrong. Don't discuss incorrect representations of things because it doesn't matter what that thing is - whether it is monergism or any other ~ism - debating a misrepresentation is always a straw man, a logical fallacy and..... the Holy Spirit does NOT argue fallaciously. In other words, on every occasion in which we enter a straw man debate - whether intentional or unknowingly - we have left behind the Spirit. The Spirit doesn't argue fallaciously, falsely. The Spirit argues truth. Therefore, get the truth of a position correct first. Or, if a person is already biased against a position, at least get that error stated correctly. That's what we find in the OT prophets, the gospels, and the epistolary. We don't just find it in word; we find it in method, too. Monergism teaches the only thing we bring to our salvation is our sin, not out sin-enslaved or momentarily liberated volition. AFTER we are birthed anew from above only then can we and are we involved in working out our salvation with God as the author and finisher/perfector of our faith. Maybe I've been wrong to think this, but to me, since apart from him we can do nothing (and several other similar scriptural statements), monergism necessarily includes all of a person's Christian growth. Then how do you explain all of the content in the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly stating God didn't do violence to the human will, and affirming human volition and the responsibility and culpability humans bear for their own actions? When this op, via Tiessen, asserts, "Monergists believe that everything that occurs happens according to the will of God’s eternal purpose," that is true and correct but incomplete because monergism is not robot theology. Humans are not puppets and God is not a Puppet Master. Volitional agency is asserted and affirmed in monergism, not denied. The monergistic perspective believe humans act according to their nature. a good person will act good and since - according to scripture - there are no good persons, there are none who act good. A sinful person will act according to their sinful nature. A sinfully fleshly person will act according to the fleshly nature and a Spiritual person (big "S," not a little one) will act according to that Spiritual nature endowed to them at conversion. The sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate non-believer has only the flesh; no Spirit. There's no possibility that person can act in a Spiritual manner because s/he has no Spirit by which that might be possible. Even the otherwise moral act, or the obedient act, done solely by the sinful flesh can and is deemed nothing more than soiled rags. Since the sinfully fleshly person has nothing God wants or needs everything s/he does is worthless or merits nothing salvifically. It is NOT that the human lacks a will, the ability to make choices, or is absent any and all volitional agency. That is not monergism. When Jesus says, without me you can do nothing," he is speaking within the given context, not making a universal statement about all human inability or inaction. If that were the case then his words would fall on incapable ears and be meaningless. Remember: there are always two purposes in God's words. The first is judgment, the second is salvation. God is just as glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin as He is when he applies His grace for salvation. Clearly humans can sin apart from Jesus  . There's an irony to your bringing up John 15:5 because Arminius used that exact same verse, quoting Augustine's use, to prove what we now call Total Depravity. Arminius clearly didn't believe "nothing" was universal," only soteriological. Monergists agree. My regrets but I gotta go. |
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 5, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8
This seems like easiest to understand explanation to me.
The Calvinist view is called monergism—from two Greek words that mean “one” and “energy” or “action.” Monergism is the belief that salvation is all God’s doing from beginning to end without any cooperation from the person being saved other than what God instills in that person. The alternative is “synergism”—the belief that salvation is all of grace but requires free cooperation for it to be activated in a person’s life
|
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 5, 2022 6:59:02 GMT -8
It was by God's grace that Noah was saved from the flood but it took Noah's obedience to God's word in building the ark to receive God's grace. God did not extend grace, build the ark, preach righteousness to those lost people, etc.....the salvation of Noah was obviously not all God's doing whereas Noah had nothing to do at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by resurrection33 on Sept 5, 2022 11:07:02 GMT -8
Monergism and synergism are comprehensive theories in regard to the meticulousness of God’s control in the world. Monergists believe that everything that occurs happens according to the will of God’s eternal purpose. (You can hear this in the New City Catechism’s answer to Q2: “What is God? A: God is the creator and sustainer of everyone and everything. . . . Nothing happens except through him and by his will.”) Synergists believe that God has chosen to limit his control, giving creatures the ability to determine at least some of the outcomes in creaturely history. Only monergists are compatibilists, because compatibilism asserts that God’s meticulous control of history is compatible with human moral responsibility. By contrast, synergists are necessarily incompatibilists. They think that if God determines all outcomes then creatures have no moral responsibility. Not all monergists are compatibilists, because theistic fatalists assert that God is meticulously in control but they often deny human moral responsibility. Evangelical monergists are all compatibilists, but in order to maintain the compatibility of divine determination with human responsibility, many (most?) of them describe human freedom as not libertarian. They asssert (following Jonathan Edwards, for instance) that we act responsibly if we act willingly, without coercion. It is not necessary that we could have done otherwise than we do (i.e. that we have libertarian freedom). In fact, most compatibilists deny that such is the case. Consequently, soft-determinists often speak of “compatibilist freedom.” This is a bit misleading, because Thomas Aquinas was a monergist (believed in meticulous divine control) but he also affirmed libertarian freedom. Following John Martin Fischer, I call that “hard compatibilism,” and I call the compatibility of divine determination and the creaturely freedom of spontaneity “soft compatibilism.” It would be nice to be a hard compatibilist, because people in western cultures characteristically assume that genuine freedom is libertarian. Outside of Thomism, however, hard compatibilism seems rare. J. I. Packer may be a hard compatibilist, but he simply appeals to mystery, he does not try to define how it works. It is, he says, an antinomy, but it is not a paradox (or contradiction in terms). So compatibilism and monergism are not exactly the same thing, though they often go together. Similarly synergism and libertarianism are not exactly the same thing because Aquinas (and probably Packer) put monergism and libertarianism together. www.thoughtstheological.com/monergismsynergism-compatibilismincompatibilism-and-the-nature-of-human-freedom/#:~:text=Only%20monergists%20are%20compatibilists%2C%20because%20compatibilism%20asserts%20that,all%20outcomes%20then%20creatures%20have%20no%20moral%20responsibility. I believe God is in control, but he lets us struggle. There is purpose in that. One purpose is that he wants us to build our faith. His job is a whole lot easier when we trust him. |
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 5, 2022 11:37:49 GMT -8
resurrection33That's a good point, absolutely trust and faith go hand in hand. I think we're all on their ongoing journey learning to trust God. Always liked this Verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” —Jeremiah 29:11 Simply trusting every day, Trusting through a stormy way; Even when my faith is small, Trusting Jesus, that is all. Singing if my way is clear, Praying if the path be drear; If in danger for Him call; Trusting Jesus, that is all. Trusting Him while life shall last, Trusting Him till earth be past; Till within the jasper wall, Trusting Jesus, that is all. Trusting as the moments fly, Trusting as the days go by; Trusting Him whate’er befall, Trusting Jesus, that is all. I love the theme of this beloved song written by Edgar P. Stites, a Civil War veteran and riverboat captain.
|
|
. 
