Arguing against Synergism: White

[Mr GLee]

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

Hi . Its easy to see the wile of the evil one .

Deceiving all the nations God is a Jewish man as King of kings. He fell according to Revelation 20 . He fell in a bottomless pit . not able to deceive all the nations God is a Jewish man dying mankind

God is not a Word he pronounces, prophecies them "let there be" and his good living word took form

A better translation, knowing God who is Spirit is more than a word

John 1:1-2 Living Bible Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is—nothing exists that he didn’t make. Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. His life is the light that shines through the darkness—and the darkness can never extinguish it.

The dynamic dual, not trinity .Three is a crowd .

 

[JIM]

The dynamic dual, not trinity .Three is a crowd .

No -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity.

 

[Mr GLee]

No -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity.

What Spirit, the Spirit of the father that works in the Son. .. . . . The Holy Spirit?

The Spirit of Christ the husband?

Must be the original Dynamic Dual Not the Three Musketeers

Two is company. . . three is a crowd (Queen mother called Mary )

 

[His clay]

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

Autonomy takes various forms. A very helpful section in a book pointed this out. I'll give you a quote.

By the term autonomy I mean that quality of the will or intellect that enables it to function either for or against any particular course of action, thereby exhibiting an innate ability. The term originally meant "able to make its own laws" and indicated independence of external or higher constraints. Metaphysical autonomy is therefore freedom from external ontological control. Epistemological autonomy means that capacity to understand and interpret experience with oneself as the starting point--the autonomous consciousness does not need any previous interpretation to make the world intelligible to the mind. Ethical or moral autonomy is the ability to make moral judgments from an interior sense of right and wrong, which thereby implies an ability to supply one's own standards. Finally, teleological autonomy is the ability to determine one's own destiny by one's own choices and to set one's own goals.

It should be apparent from these descriptions that autonomy just means free will in the commonly accepted sense of that term. Someone once said that the only people who have trouble defining free will are the philosophers. Any normal person knows exactly what it is. It simply means that “I can run my own life by my own choices without outside interference, thank you.”

Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996. p. 45.

The Arminian may deny the term, but I don't see how they can avoid the reality. Metaphysical autonomy under-girds their whole system, and without it their objections to Calvinism would be moot. So, the idea that they don't hold to autonomy seems to be overly nitpicky on terminology or deception or perhaps an unwillingness to be defined and pinned down.

 

[makesends]

Autonomy takes various forms. A very helpful section in a book pointed this out. I'll give you a quote.


Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996. p. 45.

The Arminian may deny the term, but I don't see how they can avoid the reality. Metaphysical autonomy under-girds their whole system, and without it their objections to Calvinism would be moot. So, the idea that they don't hold to autonomy seems to be overly nitpicky on terminology or deception or perhaps an unwillingness to be defined and pinned down.

Wright, R.K. McGregor's quote bears a good strong copy-paste! Not so strongly, my comments between, in {comments}.

"By the term autonomy I mean that quality of the will or intellect that enables it to function either for or against any particular course of action, thereby exhibiting an innate ability. {notice the wording, "function for or against". This does not mean that the person is able to change what God has decreed will happen, but only that they decide.} The term originally meant "able to make its own laws" and indicated independence of external or higher constraints. {I have my own problems with that 'independence' in that statement, but...} Metaphysical autonomy is therefore freedom from external ontological control. {this statement, while it works, is rather meaningless—GOD IS THE BASIS OF OUR VERY ONTOLOGY!—therefore, the whole tone of "control" is meaningless and the point is bogus, (except as concerns the realm, metaphysical or otherwise, of our relationship to the rest of creation, and even there, it still only implies choice—not lack of exact causation, as Wright's next statement allows, (my underline)).} Epistemological autonomy means that capacity to understand and interpret experience with oneself as the starting point--the autonomous consciousness does not need any previous interpretation to make the world intelligible to the mind. Ethical or moral autonomy is the ability to make moral judgments from an interior sense of right and wrong, which thereby implies an ability to supply one's own standards. Finally, teleological autonomy is the ability to determine one's own destiny by one's own choices and to set one's own goals. {And THAT last statement makes no implications one way or the other that higher forces are not at work here.}

It should be apparent from these descriptions that autonomy just means free will in the commonly accepted sense of that term {i.e. mere actual choice}. Someone once said that the only people who have trouble defining free will are the philosophers. Any normal person knows exactly what it is. It simply means that “I can run my own life by my own choices without outside interference, thank you.” Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996. p. 45."

I LOVE that statement! Ironically, if you ask them to define free will, that is all they really believe about it, but their declarations become as obtuse and silly as a Pelagian's does . Most people consider themselves "as the starting point" in their meaning of the term, "free will". They may not actually believe that they are the starting point, but that is what they mean by it, nonetheless. But don't try to pin them down!

 

[His clay]

Wright, R.K. McGregor's quote bears a good strong copy-paste! Not so strongly, my comments between, in {comments}.

"By the term autonomy I mean that quality of the will or intellect that enables it to function either for or against any particular course of action, thereby exhibiting an innate ability. {notice the wording, "function for or against". This does not mean that the person is able to change what God has decreed will happen, but only that they decide.} The term originally meant "able to make its own laws" and indicated independence of external or higher constraints. {I have my own problems with that 'independence' in that statement, but...} Metaphysical autonomy is therefore freedom from external ontological control. {this statement, while it works, is rather meaningless—GOD IS THE BASIS OF OUR VERY ONTOLOGY!—therefore, the whole tone of "control" is meaningless and the point is bogus, (except as concerns the realm, metaphysical or otherwise, of our relationship to the rest of creation, and even there, it still only implies choice—not lack of exact causation, as Wright's next statement allows, (my underline)).} Epistemological autonomy means that capacity to understand and interpret experience with oneself as the starting point--the autonomous consciousness does not need any previous interpretation to make the world intelligible to the mind. Ethical or moral autonomy is the ability to make moral judgments from an interior sense of right and wrong, which thereby implies an ability to supply one's own standards. Finally, teleological autonomy is the ability to determine one's own destiny by one's own choices and to set one's own goals. {And THAT last statement makes no implications one way or the other that higher forces are not at work here.}

It should be apparent from these descriptions that autonomy just means free will in the commonly accepted sense of that term {i.e. mere actual choice}. Someone once said that the only people who have trouble defining free will are the philosophers. Any normal person knows exactly what it is. It simply means that “I can run my own life by my own choices without outside interference, thank you.” Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996. p. 45."

I LOVE that statement! Ironically, if you ask them to define free will, that is all they really believe about it, but their declarations become as obtuse and silly as a Pelagian's. Most people consider themselves "as the starting point" in their meaning of the term, "free will". They may not actually believe that they are the starting point, but that is what they mean by it, nonetheless. But don't try to pin them down!

It is brutal trying to read the yellow font. I had to drag the cursor over the yellow words, to be able to see them properly. Maybe I'm just old, and my eyesight it failing. Or maybe my brightness setting is too high?

 

[makesends]

It is brutal trying to read the yellow font. I had to drag the cursor over the yellow words, to be able to see them properly. Maybe I'm just old, and my eyesight it failing. Or maybe my brightness setting is too high?

My bad. I didn't want it too fancy, and I use a dark background with light letters. For some reason it didn't occur to me that the yellow might be too light.

There, I fixed it. Sorry.

 

[His clay]

Wright, R.K. McGregor's quote bears a good strong copy-paste! Not so strongly, my comments between, in {comments}.

"By the term autonomy I mean that quality of the will or intellect that enables it to function either for or against any particular course of action, thereby exhibiting an innate ability. {notice the wording, "function for or against". This does not mean that the person is able to change what God has decreed will happen, but only that they decide.} The term originally meant "able to make its own laws" and indicated independence of external or higher constraints. {I have my own problems with that 'independence' in that statement, but...} Metaphysical autonomy is therefore freedom from external ontological control. {this statement, while it works, is rather meaningless—GOD IS THE BASIS OF OUR VERY ONTOLOGY!—therefore, the whole tone of "control" is meaningless and the point is bogus, (except as concerns the realm, metaphysical or otherwise, of our relationship to the rest of creation, and even there, it still only implies choice—not lack of exact causation, as Wright's next statement allows, (my underline)).} Epistemological autonomy means that capacity to understand and interpret experience with oneself as the starting point--the autonomous consciousness does not need any previous interpretation to make the world intelligible to the mind. Ethical or moral autonomy is the ability to make moral judgments from an interior sense of right and wrong, which thereby implies an ability to supply one's own standards. Finally, teleological autonomy is the ability to determine one's own destiny by one's own choices and to set one's own goals. {And THAT last statement makes no implications one way or the other that higher forces are not at work here.}

It should be apparent from these descriptions that autonomy just means free will in the commonly accepted sense of that term {i.e. mere actual choice}. Someone once said that the only people who have trouble defining free will are the philosophers. Any normal person knows exactly what it is. It simply means that “I can run my own life by my own choices without outside interference, thank you.” Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996. p. 45."

I LOVE that statement! Ironically, if you ask them to define free will, that is all they really believe about it, but their declarations become as obtuse and silly as a Pelagian's does . Most people consider themselves "as the starting point" in their meaning of the term, "free will". They may not actually believe that they are the starting point, but that is what they mean by it, nonetheless. But don't try to pin them down!

Just so that you know, Wright and I, both, disagree with the autonomy assumption. I see no need to placate it or try to mold my theology around it. It is just a false assumption. Now, with respect toward people to people relationships, there is a certain measure of autonomy. But with respect to God, I jump from the autonomous ship. The Bible simply presents the reality that human beings are not autonomous from God. They depend upon Him for their moment-by-moment existence. Jesus says, "apart from me you can do nothing."

The reason for presenting the definition is to define a critical element of the Arminian position, and then one can clearly see the problem to be dealt with.

 

[makesends]

Just so that you know, Wright and I, both, disagree with the autonomy assumption. I see no need to placate it or try to mold my theology around it. It is just a false assumption. Now, with respect toward people to people relationships, there is a certain measure of autonomy. But with respect to God, I jump from the autonomous ship. The Bible simply presents the reality that human beings are not autonomous from God. They depend upon Him for their moment-by-moment existence. Jesus says, "apart from me you can do nothing."

The reason for presenting the definition is to define a critical element of the Arminian position, and then one can clearly see the problem to be dealt with.

I've seen several times, lately, in several threads here and on CF, (even on an Atheist forum), that there are two completely different uses/definitions of many words, depending on whether one is talking about from God's POV or the Human (temporal) POV. 'Paradox', for example, at best could only be called 'irony' if even that, from God's POV.

But we keep assuming substance to our meanings!