Ohhhhhhh....not cool! :Cool
Synergist and Monergist: Better Terms
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Reformed, Dec 27, 2017.
Page 4 of 8
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member
Well, you may have noticed that Reformed rejected my definition of what my position might be. But that is something we should want to avoid. That is why I only offered the rephrasing of Monergism without insisting on it. I do not want to simply put words in someone’s mouth or build a strawman argument, rather I am looking for some proverbial sharpening.
I think that first reply exposed a lot of the real issue, and I would like to see how that works out. -
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk -
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk -
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk -
Jesus didn't speak like Mr. Rogers, and Luther was brilliant with his insults, which at times are appropriate, and dare I say, helpful.
Here is a couple of harsh (and well-deserved) ones directed at the pope:
“May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”
“Even if the Antichrist appears, what greater evil can he do than what you have done and do daily?” -
Anyway,
-
-
John Hendryx at Monergism.com quotes from the New Century Dictionary on Synergism: "...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."
The same dictionary states this about Monergism: "In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."
Webster's Dictionary, Theopedia, The Westminster Theological Dictionary et. al are all similar in their definitions.
Using your definition of Monergism, yes, consent on the part of the person does not precede regeneration. Once the human will is released from its bondage to sin it is free to believe, but regeneration has already taken place.
In your definition of Synergism, you do not use the word "cooperate", you substitute it with "consent". But even in your wording, God cannot regenerate without the consent of the individual, so there is still a cooperative effort taking place. Ergo, man is cooperating with God in regeneration.
You may want to look at this: Two View of Regeneration
Lastly, the person of the Godhead who regenerates is actually the Holy Spirit, not the Father or the Son. -
Of course not, but we all have our personalities and ways of communicating. If I can make my point without being sarcastic, so much the better. -
-
-
-
-
RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member
You went through a lot of explaining about Synergism, which is OK, but you still seem to want to define another’s view, rather than allow the other to do so. This points out a major problem with labels and why attempts to discuss can be so frustrating for everyone.
My definition was quite clear, and even closely matched a standard definition of Synergism, yet you did not seem to recognize it as such the first time around. But perhaps it really isn’t the standard definition, and Synergism does not describe my view.
I outright reject the term “cooperate” as descriptive of my view, because it connotes way too much. If a heart surgeon were to operate on me, I would not co-operate; I would consent, and want anesthesia. I would not do anything, and perhaps this is where Synergism is a poor term for my view. There are not two able surgeons or energetic agents in this operation, only one—God.
So, in this sense, I am a Monergist, just not your kind. The problem is that some must view consent as actually doing something, or able to accomplish something. I obviously do not view it that way at all, and I must reject any label that would suggest that I do. Being offered only the two labels as defined I feel is akin to asking me “Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No?” when I’ve never beat her.
What I find more intriguing is that you seem to be fine with the patient being operated on against his express will, yet you also state that the patient has no will until after the operation. Is that really what you meant?
RT& -
Or another one, "Don't take yourself so seriously".
Or another one, "Life is 10% how you make it and 90% how you take it". -
-
Let me give you an example. When I read a post from someone who is being purposefully obtuse, I have to grit my teeth for a moment. My first reaction is to respond in kind. Of course, that will not accomplish anything good. If it is a one-off type of thing, I can deal with it. We all have bad moments. But there are some folks who act that way all the time. They remove the enjoyment of board participation (for me). If it gets to that point I simply choose to make it more enjoyable for the both of us. I just click my mouse and the problem is resolved. -
Like I said, 'To each his own'. Once I've got em' pegged, I personally derive some satisfaction observing them acting out just I suspected they would. I'd rather watch them than blank them out.
Page 4 of 8