Arguing against Synergism: White

[makesends]

Watching a James White video today, I saw a difference in the ways Monergists argue against Synergism. I myself have done both.

White says that the one way is not a valid argument. He says that (my words, here) the true synergist's view is not that free will is autonomous, but that even though we have no autonomy, we do have faith, that adds to God's work, in procuring salvation. The true synergist does not call that works, calling works deeds, and not attitudes and such. I say he has a good point.

The reason we (monergists) produce both arguments, and even mix them together, may well be because those obviously holding to synergism are ignorant/self-deterministic enough to claim autonomy.

Arminianism proper does not claim autonomy, (though, in my opinion, their logic reduces to that).

James White is a great debater for several reasons, one of which is his ability to reduce diffracted noise (non-cohesive arguments from 'all over the place') and bad logic to disparate components.

"Prevenient grace is the scotch tape that holds Arminianism / Synergism together." —James White

 

[Josheb]

Watching a James White video today, I saw a difference in the ways Monergists argue against Synergism. I myself have done both.

White says that the one way is not a valid argument. He says that (my words, here) the true synergist's view is not that free will is autonomous, but that even though we have no autonomy, we do have faith, that adds to God's work, in procuring salvation. The true synergist does not call that works, calling works deeds, and not attitudes and such. I say he has a good point.

If White's "point" is the mere observation of what synergists assert, then he has made a good point. However, "having" faith is meaningless unless and until it is operationalized. Paul and James both made this observation two millennia ago. Paul: Satan believes. James: Show me your faith. Another crux occurs with that pesky little word "adds." How, exactly, does a fleshly faith add to God's work? What's being left out is "How does a fleshly faith add work to God's work? Still another absent point on the side of the synergism is the denial of faith as a gift of God and not of ourselves. The synergist typically argues only the grace of Ephesians 2:8 is a gift, and not the faith also. This is why it is so very important to be fully honest about what, exactly synergism argues because what it argues is for a fleshly faith that's not from God that is never operationalized (lest it become a work) yet adds to God's work. One more point: When White talks about the "human being," it should be unequiviocally acknowledged the human in question is a sinner and everything pertaining to that sinner's faculties is adulterated by sin..... including his/her fleshly faith (s/he has no spirit by which to have a Spirit-led faith because faith precedes regeneration in synergism.

White stumbled over his words in the beginning. Put in proper syntax, what he said described as the synergist protest is....

Argument: The Calvinist argument that the synergist makes faith a work is invalid. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in Calvinism..... because we are saved by faith and not by works.​

The problem here is two-fold: 1) just because Calvinist might be wrong does not make synergism correct, and 2) scripture NEVER states anyone is saved by faith. We are saved through faith (more on that later). The synergist protest is twice misguided.

As far as the differing views of faith:

Work (definition 1): A meritorious action that earns salvation.

Work (definition 2): An autonomous act of a human being outside of the decree of God.

White then presents the synergist argument as....

Argument: The two are not to be conflated. In synergism there are two not-equal forces. God is one and the second is the will of man aided to one degree or another by grace. The second "force," the will of man, is autonomous (acting outside the decree of God). It is not limited to the elect only possess, not based on foreknowledge. The autonomous act produced by the human, in and of himself, is absolutely necessary for salvation and God cannot save that person without that act.​

Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of synergism? I, personally, would use a different wording and qualify those two "arguments" as common but not necessarily universal. I have met synergists who acknowledge we are not saved by faith AND acknowledge the distinction between justification and salvation (although it is difficult to settle on a shared definition of justification) .... but they are few and not how synergists typically present their synergism. What White described in the second "argument" definitely describes Flowers' Provisionism well (and that can be verified objectively by simply visiting his website and sampling the plethora of articles there).

The synergists here can agree or disagree (and then provide what they think is accurate) with White's portrayal. White is not here, and this discussion will be had without his participation unless or until he arrives.

The reason we (monergists) produce both arguments, and even mix them together, may well be because those obviously holding to synergism are ignorant/self-deterministic enough to claim autonomy.

It has been my observation a duality is maintained that is never reconciled. My version of the synergist argument might be...

Faith does not cause salvation, salvation is by faith.​

That contradiction is not recognized.

Arminianism proper does not claim autonomy, (though, in my opinion, their logic reduces to that).

And that is an excellent point because classic Reformed Arminian soteriology is much different than the Wesleyan/Traditionalist/Provisionist version. I agree wholeheartedly with White: there is no scripture stating prevenient grace is a thing. Scripture describes a much different view of the sinner and his/her propensities and abilities.

James White is a great debater for several reasons, one of which is his ability to reduce diffracted noise (non-cohesive arguments from 'all over the place') and bad logic to disparate components.

That is true, but the reverse ad hominem should be avoided. His being a great debater does not mean his argument is valid or sound.

"Prevenient grace is the scotch tape that holds Arminianism / Synergism together." —James White

Yep

 

[Mr GLee]

Watching a James White video today, I saw a difference in the ways Monergists argue against Synergism. I myself have done both.

White says that the one way is not a valid argument. He says that (my words, here) the true synergist's view is not that free will is autonomous, but that even though we have no autonomy, we do have faith, that adds to God's work, in procuring salvation. The true synergist does not call that works, calling works deeds, and not attitudes and such. I say he has a good point.

The reason we (monergists) produce both arguments, and even mix them together, may well be because those obviously holding to synergism are ignorant/self-deterministic enough to claim autonomy.

Arminianism proper does not claim autonomy, (though, in my opinion, their logic reduces to that).

James White is a great debater for several reasons, one of which is his ability to reduce diffracted noise (non-cohesive arguments from 'all over the place') and bad logic to disparate components.

"Prevenient grace is the scotch tape that holds Arminianism / Synergism together." —James White

God's grace as a labor of His "Let there be" Faithful love. Called a "work of faith" or understanding.

Like fire works no fire power no works to display.

The two fold work working as one. The Spirit of Christ faithfully prepares a person for conversion and brings salivation . Both (the synergy) giving ears to understand and power to do the work according to the good pleasure of Faithful Christ .

Its the kind of food the disciples knew not of a first. Powerful food the will of the father to both give ears to understanding (faith) and empower Jesus the Son of man to finish it to the Father's glory .

Yoked with the Faithful One daily burdens can be lighter ,with a future living hope beyond what the eyes see the temporal .

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

The daily bread or called hidden manna.

John 4:33-35King James Version Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

 

[makesends]

God's grace as a labor of His "Let there be" Faithful love. Called a "work of faith" or understanding.

Like fire works no fire power no works to display.

The two fold work working as one. The Spirit of Christ faithfully prepares a person for conversion and brings salivation . Both (the synergy) giving ears to understand and power to do the work according to the good pleasure of Faithful Christ .

Its the kind of food the disciples knew not of a first. Powerful food the will of the father to both give ears to understanding (faith) and empower Jesus the Son of man to finish it to the Father's glory .

Yoked with the Faithful One daily burdens can be lighter ,with a future living hope beyond what the eyes see the temporal .

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

The daily bread or called hidden manna.

John 4:33-35King James Version Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying.

Let me back up, because this goes to what you say here, I think.

I've heard you say the man is not God, and (if I remember right) that the Son of man is not God and that the Son of God is not man. —so, my question: WAS (past tense) Jesus the Christ both man and God? Is (present tense but also future) Jesus the Christ both man and God? I get your desire to separate the two notions, but there was one being here on earth. Was he not THE Son of God, or was the Son of God in Heaven observing Jesus who was on earth, or just what is going on in your mind?

To the mods. If we must, should I start a separate thread on this? I don't mean to derail the OP. @Carbon @Arial @Ladodgers6 and whoever. Or maybe someone can give me some insight on @Mr GLee 's position/opinions/beliefs. I just don't get it. Sometimes I think I do, and sometimes I don't.

 

[JIM]

As far as the differing views of faith:

Work (definition 1): A meritorious action that earns salvation.

Work (definition 2): An autonomous act of a human being outside of the decree of God.

And that is the crux of the failure of the monergist argument. Jesus said that faith, believing in God, was a work (John 6:28-29). Paul said that we are saved through faith and not works. Clearly, the work that Jesus spoke of and the works that Paul spoke of were not the same. The work that Paul spoke of when declaring salvation to be not by works, was works of law. He stated that specifically on several occasions. It is clear that he meant that even if he didn't state it specifically. Otherwise, he would have been in conflict with Jesus and Paul definitely did not contradict Jesus. Paul's statement of salvation through faith and not of works does not preclude salvation being conditional upon the one to be saved. Faith, as Jesus declared, is a work; however, it is not a work of the law.

 

[Mr GLee]

I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying.

Let me back up, because this goes to what you say here, I think.

I've heard you say the man is not God, and (if I remember right) that the Son of man is not God and that the Son of God is not man. —so, my question: WAS (past tense) Jesus the Christ both man and God? Is (present tense but also future) Jesus the Christ both man and God? I get your desire to separate the two notions, but there was one being here on earth. Was he not THE Son of God, or was the Son of God in Heaven observing Jesus who was on earth, or just what is going on in your mind?

To the mods. If we must, should I start a separate thread on this? I don't mean to derail the OP. @Carbon @Arial @Ladodgers6 and whoever. Or maybe someone can give me some insight on @Mr GLee 's position/opinions/beliefs. I just don't get it. Sometimes I think I do, and sometimes I don't.

Hi Thanks

Christ the anointing Holy Spirit is the power of the Father by which we miraculously can "both" hear to understand and work with Christ in order to do his good "let there be" good pleasure .

The power of the Father worked in the son of man Jesus who was born again as a Christians a son of God . The chaste virgin bride like Timothy a member of the bride the church .

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Matthew 12:50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


Mark 3:35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother

One thing I have noticed many attribute the work to the Son of man dying mankind and not the power of the father that worked in Jesus

A propmised demonstration of the actual works as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation .The 6 days the Father did work.

We look to the foundation. . not the promised three days and nights demonstration.

 

[makesends]

And that is the crux of the failure of the monergist argument. Jesus said that faith, believing in God, was a work (John 6:28-29). Paul said that we are saved through faith and not works. Clearly, the work that Jesus spoke of and the works that Paul spoke of were not the same. The work that Paul spoke of when declaring salvation to be not by works, was works of law. He stated that specifically on several occasions. It is clear that he meant that even if he didn't state it specifically. Otherwise, he would have been in conflict with Jesus and Paul definitely did not contradict Jesus. Paul's statement of salvation through faith and not of works does not preclude salvation being conditional upon the one to be saved. Faith, as Jesus declared, is a work; however, it is not a work of the law.

Well, if so, then, that is the crux of your failure to debunk Calvinist/Reformed tenets/mindset. John 6 says, "28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” What is remarkable here, is that you missed his play on words exactly how they did. You didn't even notice, or chose to disregard with hardly a thought, the change from plural to singular from "works" to "work". You ask, what must one do to do the works of the category, "Of God". He answered their bogus question with a play on words, that demonstrates their question to be bogus, and posits that belief is God's work, and not theirs.

I can't claim Eph. 2:8,9 uses the plural, "works", as a play off of the crowd's mistake in John 6, but it is curious, that Paul uses the plural, in 'not of works' (the category).

What astounds me is the tendency of those insisting on self-determinism to narrow the definition/use of "works/work" to "deeds", to the exclusion of all else a person 'does'. Why can't y'all see that decisions, even prayer —even attitudes, exertion, force of will— is work. THIS is why monergism is said to be about being born from above —regeneration— because the person being raised from death to life has no say in the matter, is not consulted, nor even asked for permission, any more than they were when born the first time —this, vs. what comes subsequent to regeneration: what theologians refer to as 'sanctification'. (And, again, lest you go there again, this does not mean that the person is not completely wrapped up in what happens in being born again, but only that nothing he can do, say, feel or think is effectual in regeneration.) That he relinquishes (however provisionally, though he doesn't know it at the time) his will, is not denied. In fact, I insist on it, but that is always subsequent to the Spirit-generated Salvific Faith. He believes, but not by force of human will, but by the Grace of God.

BTW, your habitual use of the word, "clearly", comes across like when a salesman says, "trust me". I'm leaving your dealership forthwith.

 

[Josheb]

And that is the crux of the failure of the monergist argument. Jesus said that faith, believing in God, was a work (John 6:28-29). Paul said that we are saved through faith and not works. Clearly, the work that Jesus spoke of and the works that Paul spoke of were not the same.

No. Those two sentences are rife with error.

1. What Jesus stated is believing in Jesus is a work of God (not a work of sinful flesh).
2. Jesus never said anyone is saved by works (there's nothing in Jn. 6:28-29 contradicting Paul AT ALL).
3. You assumption they were talking about two different works is unsubstantiated and evidence of eisegesis.
4. No failure of monergism is proven.
5. If believing in Jesus is a work of God, as Jesus plainly stated, then monergism is supported, if not proven, and those two sentences are nothing more than rank delusion.

Everything else in Post #5 is an invention of your own misguided reading of scripture.

The work that Paul spoke of when declaring salvation to be not by works, was works of law.

All works are works of the Law and the laws of God that God made inherent in creation. For example, it is both logically and soteriologically impossible for the finite to reach the infinite; the finite created creature's works to reach the Infinite Creator. It does not matter whether the works are works of the Mosaic Law or any other kind of work. The finite cannot reach the infinite.

Synergism, therefore, fails at its foundation.

He stated that specifically on several occasions.

And yet Post #5 is void of even one such statement.

It is clear that he meant that even if he didn't state it specifically.

Which is it? Did he specifically state it on several occasions or not state it specifically?

Otherwise, he would have been in conflict with Jesus and Paul definitely did not contradict Jesus.

Paul did not contradict Jesus BUT you have not shown he did (or that the monergist reading of Jesus and Paul is incorrect. You are wasting everyone's time with lazy and sloppy baseless claims.

Paul's statement of salvation through faith and not of works does not preclude salvation being conditional upon the one to be saved.

His comment that it is not of ourselves does.

Ephesians 2:4-10
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

• Salvation by grace through faith is not of ourselves (precluding salvation being conditional on the one being saved).
• Salvation by grace through faith is NOT a result of [our] works (precluding works, especially works of the sinful flesh, from being a means or avenue of salvation from sin).
• By grace the saved person has been raised up in Christ (sinful humans cannot do that).
• By grace the one being saved is created in Christ (sinful humans cannot do that, either).

Synergism is both exegetically and logically impossible if and when the "through faith" clause is not removed from everything else in the surrounding text.

Faith, as Jesus declared, is a work; however, it is not a work of the law.

Jesus did not state faith was a work of sinful man, or the sinful man's sinful flesh. Jesus explicitly stated belief is the work of God.

John 6:26-29
Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on him the Father, God, has set His seal." Therefore, they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom He has sent.”

Eternal life is given, not earned.

Romans 4:1-6
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works....

Works preclude giftedness. Salvation is a gift.

In John 6:28-29 Jesus was pointing out there was nothing those people could do to work the works of God. The works of God are, by definition, God's works; God working God's works. The premise that a human can perform God's work is not only prima facie preposterous, it's unmitigated idolatry! Godly works are not the same thing as works of God (ergon tou theou). The larger context of the John 6 text is that Jesus came to do what humanity (individually and/or collectively) could not do. There was nothing that audience could do. The one to whom they were conversing, the one they were asking the question was the one who would be doing the work(s) of salvation. There's not a single word in that text t=stating the sinner can or should do any works by which they might obtain salvation.

And that is the crux of the failure of the monergist argument.

Scripture proves otherwise.

Jesus said that faith, believing in God, was a work (John 6:28-29).

Those verses prove otherwise.

Paul said that we are saved through faith and not works. Clearly, the work that Jesus spoke of and the works that Paul spoke of were not the same.

And you do not believe him. You prefer to argue Jesus and Paul were asserting different types of works when NOTHING posted proves that to be true.

Luke 1:76-79
And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and His mercy is NOT dependent on how a man walks or wills and the clay of sinful humanity has no grounds by which He might protest any of it (Rom 9).




Before we repeat the same nonsense that always ensues when you post synergistically biased nonsense, please, please give some thought to your views before posting them. Try to anticipate my correction of your errors and don't post those mistakes. Avoid giving me the opportunity to prove your mishandling of God's word. Prevent me from pointing the failed exegesis and irrational rationale. Save us both the time and effort. Don't repeat the mistakes of Post 5.

 

[JIM]

No. Those two sentences are rife with error.

1. What Jesus stated is believing in Jesus is a work of God (not a work of sinful flesh).

What utter nonsense.

The crowd to whom Jesus was speaking asked the question, , "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" His answer to what work they must do was that they "believe in him whom he has sent".

You can distort that any way you please, but don't try to convince me of your nonsense.

 

[Josheb]

What utter nonsense.

The crowd to whom Jesus was speaking asked the question, , "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" His answer to what work they must do was that they "believe in him whom he has sent".

And once again, the failure to recognize they were asking what they should do but Jesus did not tell them what they should/could do is all on you. The fact remains you misrepresented Jesus' words and the only reason that happened is because a defense of synergism was sought. Jesus did NOT say they must believe using their fleshly faculties of faith. What he did say is it was God's work. Not once did Jesus say, "You must do God's work of believing in me, His Son." This is completely consistent with what Paul wrote when he said,

Philippians 2:12-13
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure.

It is God who works in the person He is saving to both desire and work for His good pleasure.

This is now the second time you have added things not stated to God's word and the second time I have provided you with scripture plainly read exactly as written.

You can distort that any way you please, but don't try to convince me of your nonsense.

Nice red herring. I am not the one distorting anything. In John 6 Jesus did NOT say those people were to believe with their sinful flesh to obtain salvation from sin. Those people did ask them what they could do but the question itself was evidence of their sin and the ignorance it begets.

 

[JIM]

And once again, the failure to recognize they were asking what they should do but Jesus did not tell them what they should/could do is all on you.
The fact remains you misrepresented Jesus' words and the only reason that happened is because a defense of synergism was sought. Jesus did NOT say they must believe using their fleshly faculties of faith. What he did say is it was God's work. Not once did Jesus say, "You must do God's work of believing in me, His Son."

That is precisely what he said to them. Jesus did not contradict or correct them in their question. Rather, He answered directly: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

This is completely consistent with what Paul wrote when he said,

Philippians 2:12-13
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure.

It is God who works in the person He is saving to both desire and work for His good pleasure.

That is not in conflict with Jesus' statement in John 6 that believing in God is a work.

This is now the second time you have added things not stated to God's word and the second time I have provided you with scripture plainly read exactly as written.

This is but once more that you have distorted God's word in order to convince yourself of synergism of regeneration.

Nice red herring. I am not the one distorting anything. In John 6 Jesus did NOT say those people were to believe with their sinful flesh to obtain salvation from sin. Those people did ask them what they could do but the question itself was evidence of their sin and the ignorance it begets.

What are you talking about? Regeneration doesn't get rid of sinful flesh. If you believe now, you are doing so with your extant sinful flesh.

The question they asked was an honest question resulting from Jesus previous statement. He said, "Do not labor for the food that perishes, but (labor) for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." That is, labor for the food that endures to eternal life. Work for the food that endures to eternal life. What was that food? That food is the belief in Jesus Christ whom God has sent.

@Josheb, the red herring is the synergism that you promote.

 

[Josheb]

That is precisely what he said to them.

And what he precisely said to them did not mention them at all.

John 6:26-29
Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Jesus did not mention them at all!

Q: "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"​

A: It is God's work that you believe in me, Jesus.​

What you are arguing is...

Q: "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"​

A: "It is your work to believe in me, Jesus."​

The latter is self-evidently NOT what Jesus said and only the most liberally dynamic translations (like the NLV and CET) translates Jesus' words the way your posts have rendered them. When asked what they should do, Jesus replied without using them as a reference at all and explicitly couching his answer in what God works, not what the unregenerate sinner's flesh works.

That is precisely what he said to them.

How would you know? There's not a single precise post bearing your handle in this entire thread!

For example:

@Josheb, the red herring is the synergism that you promote.

I do not promote synergism.


The evidence shows imprecision understanding God's word AND presenting others' posts. If scripture is read objectively for what it actually states in and of itself, then no one will be synergist. The reason synergism will not ensue is because, having read scripture objectively, it will be realized there are absolutely no verses that assign any soteriological causality to the sinner's unregenerate will, choice, or faith BUT scripture does assign such causality to God, and it does so repeatedly. The "score," objectively speaking is blunt.

God did it = lots of explicit mentions.​

Unregenerate sinner did it = not one single explicit mention.​

Volitionalism has to be read(eisegetically) into the scriptures for it to exist.

And you just proved that practice when you cited John 6:28-29. That was the passage chosen to cite to prove your position, but the facts of those two verses are that the verses do not speak to any work of faith by the unregenerate sinner who has only his/her sinful flesh by which to accomplish the work of God. That exact same problem occurs every time you and I trade posts on soteriology. You're not very good at exegeting God's word AND you pick me - someone you know is going to point out your recurring erroneous practices - to have that conversation (Think that wrong? Then look above and count the number of posts you wrote to @makesends and the content of the opening post).

What are you talking about?

It's a huge problem you do not know what I am talking about.

Regeneration doesn't get rid of sinful flesh.

I never said it did. What I have said to you MANY times is that the unregenerate man has only his flesh, and his flesh is sinful. The unregenerate man does not possess the Holy Spirit by which he might be prompted and empowered to assert any faith he has in a salvific manner. Therefore, any faith he might assert in any action (including a profession of faith in Jesus) is necessarily and unavoidably a work of (sinful) flesh. The logically necessary conclusion of that position is that God uses sinful flesh to save a person from his/her sinful flesh. God uses sin to save from sin.

And the fact remains: there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states the sinner's volition is soteriologically predicate or causal but there are many verses stating God is the causal agent in God's salvation of the sinner from the sinner's sin.

@Josheb, the red herring is the synergism that you promote.

I do not promote synergism. Be precise (and correct) next time.

 

[JIM]

I do not promote synergism. Be precise (and correct) next time.

My mistake. I apologize. I meant to say that the red herring is the monergism that you promote.

 

[fastfredy0]

The true synergist does not call that works, calling works deeds, and not attitudes and such. I say he has a good point.

I do NOT think synergists have a "good point". Synergists in this regard are like politicians, twisting the meaning of words to fit their belief.

Definition of work: activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.

If ones come to faith independent of God then by definition it is the person's work; it is a mental effort in order to be saved.

 

[JIM]

And what he precisely said to them did not mention them at all.

John 6:26-29
Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Jesus did not mention them at all!

Q: "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"​

A: It is God's work that you believe in me, Jesus.​

What specifically does it mean that God's work is that they believe? Remember that they asked the question "what shall we do so that we may work the works of God? What do you interpret by "God's work" or "the works of God"? To me that clearly does not mean something that God would do; rather, it is something that they should do on God's behalf. Doing God's work is what God requires of them.

If I were to tell you that in my professional career that I was engaged in the company's work, you would understand that I was doing what the company required of me. You would not think that the company was doing anything in my behalf other than paying me for what the work that I was doing. I am certain that is the same direction of thought in Jesus' answer to them. "Believing in Jesus is what you must do to be doing the work that God requires of you.

 

[JIM]

I do NOT think synergists have a "good point". Synergists in this regard are like politicians, twisting the meaning of words to fit their belief.

Definition of work: activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.

If ones come to faith independent of God then by definition it is the person's work; it is a mental effort in order to be saved.

Who said one comes to faith independent of God? One comes to faith "by hearing and hearing hearing through the word of Christ" (ESV Rom 10:17), Where else does the word of Christ come from but from God, Himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit? Answer -- nowhere else but from God.

 

[Josheb]

My mistake. I apologize. I meant to say that the red herring is the monergism that you promote.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this op. This op is about the positions asserted by James White regarding the real and perceived problems of faith as a work. Nothing more.

So even as you commendably acknowledge what is presumably a thoughtless mistake..... you still sabotage the thread with non sequiturs and personal attacks. There is nothing "precise" about ANY of it so if you're going to appeal to precision then it is incumbent upon you to be precise, setting an example so I don't add hypocrisy to the growing list of dross in your posts. THIS post should be an opportunity for you to re-orient yourself to the op and restart the conversation because you've made a mess of it by mucking up John 6:28-29.

John 6:28-29 does NOT state faith is a work, yet you cited those two verses as proof of...

Jesus said that faith, believing in God, was a work (John 6:28-29).

But that is NOT what those verses state. The fact that is NOT what the verses state is self-evident by simply reading the verses objectively, as written.

John 6:28-29
Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

NOTHING there stating, "faith is a work," as was claimed.

My mistake. I apologize. I meant to say that the red herring is the monergism that you promote.

Great. Now apologize for abusing John 6:28-29 by claiming the verses say faith is a work when no such thing is present in either verse. Acknowledge the truth of what is stated: the work Jesus reported was the work of God, not the work of sinner's flesh. And going forward in this conversation live by your own metrics and be precise. Do not give me reason or the opportunity to point out another error on your part.


Did you watch and listen to the White video before posting Post 5?

 

[JIM]

The evidence shows imprecision understanding God's word AND presenting others' posts. If scripture is read objectively for what it actually states in and of itself, then no one will be synergist. The reason synergism will not ensue is because, having read scripture objectively, it will be realized there are absolutely no verses that assign any soteriological causality to the sinner's unregenerate will, choice, or faith BUT scripture does assign such causality to God, and it does so repeatedly. The "score," objectively speaking is blunt.

God did it = lots of explicit mentions.​

Unregenerate sinner did it = not one single explicit mention.​

Synergism does not assign causality of regeneration or salvation to the sinner. You speak about imprecision of understanding. Your inference that synergism does so is imprecision at its most. That inference is another red herring. Synergism does posit soteriological conditions, the work of believing being one, for regeneration and salvation but not causality.

 

[Josheb]

What specifically does it mean that God's work is that they believe?

I have already answered that question. I answered that question with other scripture and NOT monergist doctrine. The answer is found in Philippians 2:13. God works in us to do His will.

Remember that they asked the question "what shall we do so that we may work the works of God? What do you interpret by "God's work" or "the works of God"?

I have already answered that question, too. Yes, those in the audience did ask Jesus what they should do but Jesus did not answer the question asked. He told them the truth and it implied their question itself is misguided. They assume they can do something to work God;s works when that is not the case. That type of response from Jesus occurs many times in the gospels. There are many occasions where Jesus was asked a question and the response, he gave ignored the question asked and he provided an answer that went beyond their foolish inquiry to the heart of the problem. John 6:28-29 is one such example.

To me....

And that is part of the problem to be solved. Sound exegesis follows certain specific long-held and well-established precepts. Exegesis is supposed to be a science. The science of exegesis is supposed to get us to the truth of whole scripture but when done correctly it also serves to reduce disputes and obtain agreement.

John 6:28-29 does NOT state, "faith is a work," as was claimed in Post #5.

Correct that mistake before proceeding further.

...that clearly does not mean something that God would do; rather, it is something that they should do on God's behalf. Doing God's work is what God requires of them.

If I were to tell you that in my professional career that I was engaged in the company's work, you would understand that I was doing what the company required of me. You would not think that the company was doing anything in my behalf other than paying me for what the work that I was doing. I am certain that is the same direction of thought in Jesus' answer to them. "Believing in Jesus is what you must do to be doing the work that God requires of you.

Very poor example. You do not want me deconstructing that for the logical errors contained therein (like the problems of ambiguity and construction) because that will only add to the growing list of errors you've already committed. The simple fact is you read "faith is a work" into John 6:28-29 when the text says no such thing AND it does not resolve to problem White cites AT ALL.


Correct those mistakes before proceeding.

 

[JIM]

Great. Now apologize for abusing John 6:28-29 by claiming the verses say faith is a work when no such thing is present in either verse. Acknowledge the truth of what is stated: the work Jesus reported was the work of God, not the work of sinner's flesh. And going forward in this conversation live by your own metrics and be precise. Do not give me reason or the opportunity to point out another error on your part.

It is you that should apologize for abusing John 6:28-20 for refusing to accept that faith is something we do, that faith is a work.

Did you watch and listen to the White video before posting Post 5?

Yes, I did. And he makes the same monumental mistake as you do in claiming that synergism assigns causality to the sinner in being saved. It does not.