The difference between Monergism and Synergism

It does not. Go back and re-read the posts and read them as many times as it takes for you to CORRECTLY understand because no one is saying what you apparently think they are saying and you're arguing against a red herring you created. I defined the monergist position. There is no excuse for anyone to post as if that hasn't happened. 


Monergism simply asserts God alone converts and He does so based solely on His own will and His own purpose(s) and not anything having to do with the creature He alone is saving. It is only after the sinfully dead and enslaved creature is regenerated, or converted from life to death, or born anew from above, that the creature is able to make any collaborative choice with God and assert his will with any degree of influence and power by the Holy Spirit. 

You posted (my emp) "Yes, the Genesis 6 text does state, "Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD," and it does state, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God," but not once does scripture ever state, "of his own free will."

If Noah did not walk with God of his own free will or obey God's command of his own free will then he was FORCED into doing those things.

If God alone converts and where man has no choice in this, then God is FORCING conversion upon men for men have no other choice than what God is forcing upon them.   Monergism has God forcing conversion, regeneration upon man where man has no choice.  If God wants "Joe" to be converted and regenerated, then can Joe decide for himself he does not want to be converted/regenerated?  If not then monergism takes away free will.  You cannot have God doing everything while man can do nothing yet claim man has a choice in what God is doing with him.

Wouldn't have mattered whether he obeyed or disobeyed if he hadn't already been in the covenant. The covenant came first and when it came it did not come with a consultation. Only after it was established was obedience relevant. What you're describing isn't synergistic salvation; it monergistic. What you're describing is obedience after the instigation of the covenant. Synergism teaches collaboration is required to establish the covenant, not in response to it. 

You claim there was no free will involved therefore where does it state Noah had no free will and was forced by God to walk with God and forced to build the ark???

You posted "monergism does NOT negate, deny, disregard, or otherwise dispute the volitional agency of any human" yet you argue what Noah did was not of his own free will then the only conclusion is that he was forced by God having no free will.  God monergistically forced Noah to walk with him and forced Noah to obey in building the ark.  How can there be free will if God is monergistically foecing things on man with man having no choice about those things?

God created man is His own image meaning men share certain non-supernatural traits, but share traits such as the ability to reason, to be creative, to love and hate and a free will.  It would make no sense to have men to choose (Joshua 24:15) if there is no free will.  Matt 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"  If there was no free will involved here with these Jews as you claim there was no free will in Gen 6 with Noah, then we have God forcing these Jews to reject Christ (the Jews "would not") while at the same time you have God desiring these Jews "would" accept Christ creating a nonsensical, contradiction within God. 
Why command men to believe or command Noah to build an ark if man has no free will to even obey the command but man can only do what God forces upon man?  Such an idea makes God culpable for all the evil man does making God evil, the author of evil.

Yet many covenants were conditional in the OT which makes them synergistic. 

No, the covenant itself was not conditional. The elements of the covenant were conditional. When God initiated a covenant, He put forth a rather blunt dichotomy: if you do one set of things then X will ensue and if you do another set of things then Y will ensue. None of them were asked to join and none were permitted to leave. They had only two options: obey and live or disobey and die. God didn't choose, call, declare, or impose the covenant(s) on the Amorites, Jebusites, are Lower Slobovianites. He called, chose, declared, and imposed the covenant on Adam. On Noah.. On Abraham. On Moses. On David. And by extension...... 


....every single one of us!


And we should be thankful He did so because absent His extending His grace we'd all be on the other side of the covenant: dead and headed for destruction. 

Synergism is possible only if the covenant aspects are ignored or neglected. Every single word written about Abraham's descendants (bloodline or those by promise) occurs INESCAPABLY in the context of the covenant initiated by God long before most of us were born. Adam did not ask God to put the forbidden tree in the garden. God planted the garden God wanted planted and He made the humans the way He wanted them made and He then gave them a command with two options, and He NEVER asked them if they wanted to be part of it. Only AFTER all those conditions were already established did He set Adam (and Eve) "free" to think, feel, choose, and act. The exact same conditions exist in ever later exposition of the covenant. Noah wasn't asked. He was chosen, called, and then commanded and there wasn't any debate about him doing or some other guy. Abram, Isaac, and Jacob? ALL the same thing. Moses did argue with God. He tried to get out of it. There is not a single word in the account before the burning bush even remotely indicating Moses what the option to decline or that there was any other person but him. His choices came afterwards, not before. 

You'll note, if you do the study the word "covenant" is never plural in the OT. There's only one covenant. We Christians abuse this fact quite often. The only plural use of covenants in the OT is in Hosea 4 and that's a reference to human covenants, not God's singular covenant. There are only two plural uses of "covenants" in the NT and one of them (Gal. 3) is stated as an allegory, and indicative of the kind of covenant that ensues from the flesh, and the other (Eph. 2) is a reference to the repeated promises God made each time He introduced the covenant to the different figures of Jewish history. Look it up and verify that for yourselves. 



Much earlier in one of the threads you or someone else cited the Joshua 24 passage as an example of what you're talking about in this post: the conditional aspects of the covenant. At the time Josh. 24 was asserted I noted the fact that episode occurred looonng after the covenant was established. They were not given a choice in order to establish the covenant. They were given a choice as a consequence of the covenant already having been established. They had entered the promised Promised Land and they were about to eradicate everyone living in the land. All those people that would soon be slaughtered were not given a choice. They were not the covenant people of God. Their destiny was destruction..... because of the covenant God had made with Abraham before a single person in Joshua 24 was even born. And, like Adam before them, they did not wholly obey God and they suffered as a consequence. It's not until the New Testament that we learn it was never about bloodline and always about promise. It was never about negotiation; it was always about promise. You and I did not negotiate a promise with God. He made promises to us before any of us drew our first breath, just as He'd made a promise to all those he'd end up destroying before they drew breath. 


Genesis 2:15-17

Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Obey and live. Disobey and die. That was the covenant and the only choice they had came after they were planted in the covenant relationship...... which we later find out is all about Jesus (1 Pet. 1:20). 

Romans 8:1-2

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.


The law of sin and death = if you obey then you live and if you disobey then you die. 

And, as everyone already knows, the entire paradigm changed the moment Adam disobeyed God because at that exact moment sin entered the world and death came to ALL humans because all would sin. God did not ask anyone if they wanted it that way. Humans have choices but they do not have any and all choices. 

Romans 8:1-9

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.



Regeneration precedes faith because the person who has only the flesh and does not have the Spirit has only a mind of flesh that does not and cannot please God. 


Just as the first Adam changed the entire creation for the worse, the Last Adam changed the entire creation for those in him. We don't suffer the same death the unregenerate suffer. We all die. That's part of God's design. We didn't have a choice. We have choices that follow God's designs and it is only after having been brought into those designs that ay choices are even offered. Even then the options are stipulated by God. 

That is the conditional nature of the covenants. 



However, there is another VERY important aspect to the conditional aspect of the covenant because the conditions aren't actually upon us. If you're familiar with the vision Abraham had of the sundered carcasses and the imagery of the suzerain covenant, then you know God placed Himself, not Abraham, as the one whose life would be forfeit if the covenant was disobeyed. The matter had already been decided long before Abraham was ever asked, long before Abraham was ever born. All the Old Testament examples of the covenant are foreshadows of Christ and one of the undeniable and irrefutable but often neglected aspects of the covenant are as I have stated in these many posts: God initiates them, and He chooses and calls whoever He wills into the covenants without asking them beforehand, and it is only after that happens that any choices are given. So when a synergist selects a verse from an event occurring after the establishment of the covenant and asserts that episode as one of volitional saliency, he is reading scripture eisegetically, not exegetically. He's ignored all the context that renders the episode and gives it full meaning. It's a very risky thing spiritually, imo, because it denies the work of God. 

Read something other than the KJV (there is no "carnal" in the Greek), and do not put the words like "can not," imply words like "only" in where they don't exist, or ignore context. Do not treat the unregenerate as if they are regenerate, nor those outside Christ as if they are in Christ. There are huge differences between the two groups. All of those practices are unscriptural. My appeal is correct, the statement is necessary and abusing 1 Cor. 3:1-3 doesn't change those facts.