Arguing against Synergism: White

[JIM]

I have already answered that question. I answered that question with other scripture and NOT monergist doctrine.

Yes, you did and incorrectly.

 

[JIM]

And by the way, I object to the term synergism. That designation tends to infer causality. I prefer the term non-Calvinism.

 

[Josheb]

Synergism does not assign causality of regeneration or salvation to the sinner.

It does.

But it does not acknowledge that it does. AND the undeniable fact already in evidence is that you have already explicitly stated faith is a work, a non-Law work, it is a human work (the inescapable implication being it is a work the unregenerate sinner performs in his flesh), a work the human does on God's behalf, and a work that the human must specifically do in order to receive eternal life because if the human does not do that work then s/he will not have eternal life. Unless that human does the work, that human will not be saved. All of those points can be found in your posts above.


That is, by definition, a works-based soteriology. That, by definition is a causative work.

You speak about imprecision of understanding. Your inference that synergism does so is imprecision at its most. That inference is another red herring.

The posts prove otherwise.

Synergism does posit soteriological conditions, the work of believing being one, for regeneration and salvation but not causality.

If belief is a predicate condition without which God will or will not act then it is causal, not correlative.

If God operationally conditions regeneration on faith, then faith is causal, not correlative. Synergism teaches faith is operationally conditioned. Absent faith, God will not and cannot act (salvation cannot be and is not coerced in synergism). Synergists do not acknowledge the inescapable logical necessities of their soteriology, but that lack of acknowledgment does not change the facts.

The point of White's comments is fairly simple: the moment faith is asserted as a work then the ensuing soteriology instantly and inescapably becomes a doctrine asserting a works-based salvation and that work is the work of a sinner's already inescapably sinful flesh.

It is a circular, question-begging, self-contradictory point of view that has sin saving from sin with God participating in the process. It's built on a recurring misreading of scripture rife with eisegetic inferences like the ones already posted about John 6:28-29 (which you still have not corrected).

 

[Josheb]

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.

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.

Nice dodge. Even if I did make a mistake that does not prove your reading is correct. The fact is the John 6:28-29 does NOT state faith is a work, as you claimed, and it is that mistake for which you should have repented when the error was first noted.

 

[makesends]

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.

I was saying that White has a good point.

(But I agree with you there. Completely. And then some! In fact, some works of the flesh involve no conscious purpose, i.e. "in order that...")

 

[makesends]

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.

You have been shown what he means from at least (I think) 5 different posts. And you keep talking as if it can only mean THEY asked a valid question, and that Jesus gave them an answer directly to their valid question. NOT SO! In fact, elsewhere it says that he did not speak to 'them' but only in parables and riddles. (See Matthew 13:10-11; Matthew 13:34-35; Mark 4:34-35; John 16:25; Luke 8:10; Psalm 78:2; and the list goes on and on) This was not the only time he talked this way. It was a practice of his.

Again: Their question was bogus. He told them the truth, straightened the question up to deal with the facts, so to speak, and they still did not understand. Why you don't understand, I hesitate to guess.

 

[makesends]

It does.

But it does not acknowledge that it does. AND the undeniable fact already in evidence is that you have already explicitly stated faith is a work, a non-Law work, it is a human work (the inescapable implication being it is a work the unregenerate sinner performs in his flesh), a work the human does on God's behalf, and a work that the human must specifically do in order to receive eternal life because if the human does not do that work then s/he will not have eternal life. Unless that human does the work, that human will not be saved. All of those points can be found in your posts above.


That is, by definition, a works-based soteriology. That, by definition is a causative work.

The posts prove otherwise.

If belief is a predicate condition without which God will or will not act then it is causal, not correlative.

If God operationally conditions regeneration on faith, then faith is causal, not correlative. Synergism teaches faith is operationally conditioned. Absent faith, God will not and cannot act (salvation cannot be and is not coerced in synergism). Synergists do not acknowledge the inescapable logical necessities of their soteriology, but that lack of acknowledgment does not change the facts.

The point of White's comments is fairly simple: the moment faith is asserted as a work then the ensuing soteriology instantly and inescapably becomes a doctrine asserting a works-based salvation and that work is the work of a sinner's already inescapably sinful flesh.

It is a circular, question-begging, self-contradictory point of view that has sin saving from sin with God participating in the process. It's built on a recurring misreading of scripture rife with eisegetic inferences like the ones already posted about John 6:28-29 (which you still have not corrected).

Mic drop

 

[Josheb]

Yes, you did and incorrectly.

That does not change the fact I answered the question, and you asked a question that had already been answered, avoiding the answer already given.

Synergism does not assign causality of regeneration or salvation to the sinner.

And by the way, I object to the term synergism. That designation tends to infer causality. I prefer the term non-Calvinism.

Those two statements contradict one another. This is another example of your nonsensical position, an example that could have and should have easily been prevented, should never have been posted, if just a smidgen of thought had been put into the posts.

The definition of synergism is well established.

In general, the word "synergism" simply means 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. Soteriologically speaking, the term simply refers to the cooperative effort between God and humanity in the process of salvation. Synergism teaches both God and the sinner cooperate in saving the sinner from the sinner's sin. There is no other definition of soteriological synergism. There are many forms of synergism in Christianity (Pelagianism, Traditionalism, Provisionism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism, etc.), but they ALL hold to the simple premise there is a collaboration between God and the still-unregenerate sinner.

Whether the term is preferred or not, you're a synergist and it is disingenuous and nonsensical to imply otherwise with objections to the term. It's also completely off-topic to come into this thread, which is specifically and explicitly about arguing against synergism, claim not to like the term, and post under the auspices of you not being synergist.

That makes you a troll .

And I have spoken to you about that many times before. too. No one gets to come into every thread, ignore the op, post whatever they like, and hijack someone else's op. Not every discussion of soteriology is about your views, nor do they all have something to do with your agenda. This op is about specified matters pertaining to the nature of faith and works.....


...and you have gone on record unequivocally stating faith is a work and abusing John 6:28-29 to justify that claim. Whether it was intended or not, White's observations were proven correct!. You cannot, therefore, claim White is incorrect or misrepresentative when your own posts have demonstrably proven the exact opposite.

Synergism does not assign causality of regeneration or salvation to the sinner.

And by the way, I object to the term synergism. That designation tends to infer causality. I prefer the term non-Calvinism.

That's enough nonsense for me. I'll see you in the next op where I hope you will give more thought to your own posts, so they do not commit the many mistakes made here. If you wanted to assert faith as works the place to start would have been James 2:22, not John 6:28-29.

James 2:22
You see that faith was working with his works..............

I can assert synergism better than you.

 

[JIM]

Those two statements contradict one another. This is another example of your nonsensical position, an example that could have and should have easily been prevented, should never have been posted, if just a smidgen of thought had been put into the posts.

The definition of synergism is well established.

There was not contradiction. Synergism is simply a name that Calvinists give to the opposition of their false doctrine of monergism.

In general, the word "synergism" simply means 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. Soteriologically speaking, the term simply refers to the cooperative effort between God and humanity in the process of salvation. Synergism teaches both God and the sinner cooperate in saving the sinner from the sinner's sin. There is no other definition of soteriological synergism. There are many forms of synergism in Christianity (Pelagianism, Traditionalism, Provisionism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism, etc.), but they ALL hold to the simple premise there is a collaboration between God and the still-unregenerate sinner.

That is your definition. Conditions established by God to be Justified and regenerated and met by the unregenerate does not constitute the cause of salvation. The doctrine defined or implied by your definition is not necessarily what the non-monergist believes. It is certainly not what I believe.

Fundament to the monergism doctrine is that God is incapable of communicating with the still-unregenerate sinner. That is clearly a false doctrine.

Whether the term is preferred or not, you're a synergist and it is disingenuous and nonsensical to imply otherwise with objections to the term. It's also completely off-topic to come into this thread, which is specifically and explicitly about arguing against synergism, claim not to like the term, and post under the auspices of you not being synergist.

No I am not a synergist. I do not believe that the sinner is in any way a cause of salvation. That is your red herring . It is little more that name calling.

James 2:22
You see that faith was working with his works..............

I can assert synergism better than you.

So your conclusion is that James is promoting synergism? That is interesting. All that proves is that you really do not understand much of what James teaches.

 

[Arial]

Synergism is simply a name that Calvinists give to the opposition of their false doctrine of monergism

"Calvinist" is just a name you give to people who oppose your doctrine of "God helps those who help themselves."

 

[Josheb]

So your conclusion is that James is promoting synergism?

No. My point was that the entirety of scripture is available to you and the verse(s) you chose on which to base your argument was a poor choice.

 

[JIM]

"Calvinist" is just a name you give to people who oppose your doctrine of "God helps those who help themselves."

"Calvinist" is just a name you give to people who oppose your doctrine of "God helps those who help themselves."

I didn't give the name Calvinist. That was all their own doing. They follow Calvin who followed Augustine who followed Mani.

 

[JIM]

No. My point was that the entirety of scripture is available to you and the verse(s) you chose on which to base your argument was a poor choice.

How much poorer could it get than the one you chose there? Answer. Not much.

 

[JIM]

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

It is pretty clear from the video that James White doesn't really understand what it is that he is arguing against.

 

[Arial]

I didn't give the name Calvinist. That was all their own doing. They follow Calvin who followed Augustine who followed Mani.

Synergism is also a word (look it up it is in the dictionary) that describes something and is applied in theology to a certain thing. My point was, it was an empty and foolish so called argument against it that does not deal with either synergism or monergism.

 

[Mr GLee]

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."

it is the work of the faith of Christ by which we can believe Him not seen . Faith as a labor of love (let there be) is a work .

Many say God has no faith and needs none. The kind of food the apostles knew not of .

Food to both understand and empower dying mankind to perform it . Called hidden manna in Revelation 2 The give us this day "kind of bread" That it might empower mankind do do it .

 

[JIM]

Synergism is also a word (look it up it is in the dictionary) that describes something and is applied in theology to a certain thing. My point was, it was an empty and foolish so called argument against it that does not deal with either synergism or monergism.

You lost me on that one. I have no idea what you are trying to say. But that's okay, you don't need to explain.

 

[JIM]

it is the work of the faith of Christ by which we can believe Him not seen . Faith as a labor of love (let there be) is a work .

Many say God has no faith and needs none. The kind of food the apostles knew not of .

Food to both understand and empower dying mankind to perform it . Called hidden manna in Revelation 2 The give us this day "kind of bread" That it might empower mankind do do it .

The very definition of faith is given us in Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Nothing there could possibly be attributed to God, the Son of God or the Holy Spirit. Any attempt to do so is surely insulting and a rejection of who they really are.

 

[Mr GLee]

The very definition of faith is given us in Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Nothing there could possibly be attributed to God, the Son of God or the Holy Spirit. Any attempt to do so is surely insulting and a rejection of who they really are.

Yes the faith of Christ comes from hearing God .He worked in the Son (no power)

 

[JIM]

Yes the faith of Christ comes from hearing God .He worked in the Son (no power)

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. John1:1-2 says otherwise.