Can A Person Be a Monergist and a Synergist At the Same Time? Can One Be Neither?

[Arial]

Let cut to the chase you ultimately believe I am not saved (you can’t because a synergist by defenition can not be saved there is but one gospel any other gospel is to be accursed

Synergism is not the gospel. Monergism is not the gospel. The question is, does God do all the saving or is this saving work and this saving grace useless without the contribution of a man's choices to accept this grace and this gift?

That would be like having a car in your driveway. The car is there, the key is there, you have a drivers license, everything You need to go where you want to go in that car. But it is all useless unless you choose to put the key in the ignition and drive it.

The thing is, and the problem that always occurs with analogies of God and his working, is that Jesus is not a car, and he really did die on that cross for the purpose of redeeming the elect for the Father. That being the case, and God being who he is, being born again is not a offer dependent on the decision you make after "He has helped you to understand the gospel." and having understood and believed it, rejected it. "Believe and you will have eternal life." Believing it sets a person firmly in Christ so there is no room for rejecting it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We are saved despite our synergistic or monergistic outlook, that's what monergism is all about.

It’s faulty then. That’s why we do not go off isms

A synergist by definition would not be saved they are trusting in self not Jesus, they would as paul said, teach another gospel. which is not another. but a perverted gospel

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You are not saved by your own works, no matter to what doctrine you subscribe.

Then by definition. a synergist can not be saved

Where do you get this? What are you even trying to say? YOUR opinions (nor mine), YOUR concepts (nor mine) do not save, so your will cannot save. Who is saying you saved yourself by your will?

Yet I have been told since I walked into this chatroom. that I am trying to save myself by my will.

I'm saying that what your doctrine reduces to is that your act of the will in receiving the offered salvation saves you. I am not saying that your act of the will saves you at all. I am saying that your claims come down to that in the end. You do say, do you not, that if you do not 'reach' for the life preserver, you will not be saved?

Then according to you. I am not saved

Neither one of them is saved by whatever doctrine they subscribe to. Where is the problem? A true synergist is one who truly believes that is the way he is saved.

Its what his or her faith is in. A synergist thinks it is God plus him. Paul calls that a false gospel or perverted Gospel. as the Jews subscribed to the fact that it was God plus them

You seem to me to be one who truly believes that one must "reach out" to be saved. That is synergism. I'm not saying that you are not saved, but that your supposed method of salvation is misguided. But God doesn't need your arrangements of words to save you.

Once again. God did not look at ten people and just puck them outside for their will (like @ariel seemed to say, for which I called it a major logical fallacy)

But as many as have recieved him, to THEM..John 1

For God so loved the world. He gave his son so WHOEVER in that world. believes will have eternal life (new birth) John 3

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (john 20)

Again, I just go by what the word says..

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
You are not saved by your own works, no matter to what doctrine you subscribe

Then by definition. a synergist can not be saved

Huh? How does that follow? I just finished saying that the doctrine to which one subscribes is not what saves them, and that works does not save them, and you say, "then by definition a synergist can not be saved"?

Yet I have been told since I walked into this chatroom. that I am trying to save myself by my will.

Show me, please. I don't think you are 'trying to save yourself' at all —your doctrine can easily enough be taken that way, but you are not your doctrine. One might construe your thinking as that one must save himself, but your thinking is not what saves you.

makesends said:
I'm saying that what your doctrine reduces to is that your act of the will in receiving the offered salvation saves you. I am not saying that your act of the will saves you at all. I am saying that your claims come down to that in the end. You do say, do you not, that if you do not 'reach' for the life preserver, you will not be saved?

Then according to you. I am not saved

No. That is not true. And it doesn't add up. I tried to specifically deny that, in saying that what you claim, and what your doctrine teaches, is NOT what saves you. How does that become that according to me you are not saved?

Its what his or her faith is in. A synergist thinks it is God plus him. Paul calls that a false gospel or perverted Gospel. as the Jews subscribed to the fact that it was God plus them

I call you a synergist because of that very thing. In spite of how you see that 'reaching out' as not a work, it is, according to all your descriptions, an act of the will— thus, God plus him. But, again, a synergist's doctrine does not prohibit God from saving him.

Is it possible that you so strongly hold to the idea of the will being instrumental in one's 'receiving Christ', that you take every reference to doctrine to be descriptive of what actually happened in that person's case?

Let me turn it around for a moment —If I hold that my act of will has nothing to do with God saving me, how does that mean that I am not saved? (It doesn't. It only means, (to the one who disagrees with me), that my soteriology is messed up.)

Once again. God did not look at ten people and just puck them outside for their will (like @ariel seemed to say, for which I called it a major logical fallacy)

I don't know what you are talking about here. @Arial doesn't believe that God will just 'puck'(?) anyone outside for their will. Can you show me what she actually said —thread and post number, or link, and the words of that statement?

But as many as have recieved him, to THEM..John 1

For God so loved the world. He gave his son so WHOEVER in that world. believes will have eternal life (new birth) John 3

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (john 20)

Again, I just go by what the word says.

Again, the Word doesn't always say what an out-of-context first-through surface-reading of a translation of a different language in a different era in a different culture looks (to any one person) like it says.

 

[prism]

It’s faulty then. That’s why we do not go off isms

A synergist by definition would not be saved they are trusting in self not Jesus, they would as paul said, teach another gospel. which is not another. but a perverted gospel

So they would by definition would have to be saved monergistically.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

makesends said:
You are not saved by your own works, no matter to what doctrine you subscribe

Huh? How does that follow? I just finished saying that the doctrine to which one subscribes is not what saves them, and that works does not save them, and you say, "then by definition a synergist can not be saved"?

By defenition of synergism. A person who thinks they must aid or help Jesus save them. They can not be saved.

If your trusting in self. and not God to be your salvation. You are not saved by faith. because you have failed to reach saving faith.

Why bother using terms or ism's if they have no bearing on the truth?

Show me, please. I don't think you are 'trying to save yourself' at all —your doctrine can easily enough be taken that way, but you are not your doctrine. One might construe your thinking as that one must save himself, but your thinking is not what saves you.

makesends said:
I'm saying that what your doctrine reduces to is that your act of the will in receiving the offered salvation saves you. I am not saying that your act of the will saves you at all. I am saying that your claims come down to that in the end. You do say, do you not, that if you do not 'reach' for the life preserver, you will not be saved?

No. That is not true. And it doesn't add up. I tried to specifically deny that, in saying that what you claim, and what your doctrine teaches, is NOT what saves you. How does that become that according to me you are not saved?

I call you a synergist because of that very thing. In spite of how you see that 'reaching out' as not a work, it is, according to all your descriptions, an act of the will— thus, God plus him. But, again, a synergist's doctrine does not prohibit God from saving him.

Is it possible that you so strongly hold to the idea of the will being instrumental in one's 'receiving Christ', that you take every reference to doctrine to be descriptive of what actually happened in that person's case?

Let me turn it around for a moment —If I hold that my act of will has nothing to do with God saving me, how does that mean that I am not saved? (It doesn't. It only means, (to the one who disagrees with me), that my soteriology is messed up.)

I don't know what you are talking about here. @Arial doesn't believe that God will just 'puck'(?) anyone outside for their will. Can you show me what she actually said —thread and post number, or link, and the words of that statement?

Again, the Word doesn't always say what an out-of-context first-through surface-reading of a translation of a different language in a different era in a different culture looks (to any one person) like it says.

here is the difference. You believe you were saved by grace alone.. And through your salvation. You trusted God, so in esse4nce. You believe saved by Grace through faith. only you have some things turned around.

I believe we are saved by Grace through faith also. Only difference is I believe my salvation occurred once I received the gift of God. it is by grace only. but through that faith that I was saved.

another group that believes this would be the licentious group. Who think we can say a sinners prayer and then we are saved no matter what so can go and sin all we want.

In the end. We pretty much salvically believe in salvation by grace alone.

Now. If we are adding works to the equation (synergism) Then we believe it is faith plus works. Paul calls us fools. and calls us believing a different gospel. which means we are to be anathema

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So they would by definition would have to be saved monergistically.

Well I would call it they would have to repent and get saved as God required by looking to the cross in faith..

Monergism or synergism are not gospels.. As @makesends say. I agree with that notion. They are doctrines which someone formed.. to try to put people into brackets or status or whatever reason it was created.

 

[makesends]

So they would by definition would have to be saved monergistically.

By definition of what? If you mean, 'by definition of saved' —that is, by definition of grace— yes, monergistically.

 

[makesends]

By defenition of synergism. A person who thinks they must aid or help Jesus save them. They can not be saved.

If your trusting in self. and not God to be your salvation. You are not saved by faith. because you have failed to reach saving faith.

Why bother using terms or ism's if they have no bearing on the truth?

here is the difference. You believe you were saved by grace alone.. And through your salvation. You trusted God, so in esse4nce. You believe saved by Grace through faith. only you have some things turned around.

I believe we are saved by Grace through faith also. Only difference is I believe my salvation occurred once I received the gift of God. it is by grace only. but through that faith that I was saved.

another group that believes this would be the licentious group. Who think we can say a sinners prayer and then we are saved no matter what so can go and sin all we want.

In the end. We pretty much salvically believe in salvation by grace alone.

Now. If we are adding works to the equation (synergism) Then we believe it is faith plus works. Paul calls us fools. and calls us believing a different gospel. which means we are to be anathema

Let me try it like this. What a person THINKS he believes, is not what his heart trusts. Also, WHAT a person believes is not what saves him. If one is saved, he is saved by grace alone, regardless of his construction of how it happened.

 

[makesends]

Well I would call it they would have to repent and get saved as God required by looking to the cross in faith..

Monergism or synergism are not gospels.. As @makesends say. I agree with that notion. They are doctrines which someone formed.. to try to put people into brackets or status or whatever reason it was created.

No, they are doctrines that describe the 2 main ways people think God saves.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

This is amazing. I guess I'm beginning to understand why I have heard you are trolling. We never get anywhere, no matter how clear I try to make myself.

What does this mean?

I am just stating a fact. By defenition, if you are a synergist. you would not be saved.

Now if you do not agree. thats fine. But I see it no other way.

I am amazed that you would even mention the word troll

Let me try it like this. What a person THINKS he believes, is not what his heart trusts. Also, WHAT a person believes is not what saves him. If one is saved, he is saved by grace alone, regardless of his construction of how it happened.

which by definition would make him a monergist

I think you are starting to see why I hate isms. What purpose do they serve..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

No, they are doctrines that describe the 2 main ways people think God saves.

yes.

And it would also describe them, which is why I am saying, by definition, a person who is a synergist would not be saved,

A monergism may or may not be saved.

I am called a synergist. when I look at the definition. According to what it says. I would not be saved.

 

[Arial]

yes.

And it would also describe them, which is why I am saying, by definition, a person who is a synergist would not be saved,

A monergism may or may not be saved.

I am called a synergist. when I look at the definition. According to what it says. I would not be saved.

Why? Because you think that would be saying you think you are saved by your works? You have made it perfectly clear that you do not believe you are saved by your works. What you do not realize is that saying you cannot be saved unless you reach for the lifesaver that is offered, IS a work of contribution to salvation and the only thing that makes salvation effective for you. That does not mean you are not saved. It means that you are looking at it incorrectly. Interpreting many scriptures incorrectly, because you are trying to make monergism and synergism both true concerning the same thing at the same time---the way in which we are saved.

 

[prism]

By definition of what? If you mean, 'by definition of saved' —that is, by definition of grace— yes, monergistically.

By the definition EG gave.

 

[prism]

Well I would call it they would have to repent and get saved as God required by looking to the cross in faith..

But is not faith itself a gift given...
John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 6:44 (KJV) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

A synergist by definition would not be saved they are trusting in self not Jesus, they would as paul said, teach another gospel. which is not another. but a perverted gospel

I was saved even as one much worse than a synergist. I was drawn by the Father to the Son.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But is not faith itself a gift given...
John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 6:44 (KJV) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

How does God draw you to faith.

I was saved even as one much worse than a synergist. I was drawn by the Father to the Son.

So A monergist?

 

[Arial]

How does God draw you to faith.

Regeneration. But the passage does not say he draws them to faith. It says he draws them to Christ.

 

[makesends]

I am just stating a fact. By defenition, if you are a synergist. you would not be saved.

which by definition would make him a monergist

I think you are starting to see why I hate isms. What purpose do they serve..

Ok. Let me try this: You said, "By defenition, if you are a synergist. you would not be saved." By definition of what —Synergist? A synergist is one who holds to the doctrine of Synergism. Simple as that. He could very well be saved, and be mistaken about how he is saved.

Monergists hold to monergism. None of us monergists understand the Gospel in its entirety. We too can have some concepts wrong. Witness how many of us see things differently here.

It is not our doctrine that saves. It is not our comprehension of the doctrine that saves. At best, it might be posited that the truth of the Gospel is what saves, because Salvific Faith is in that truth—Jesus Christ—the Way, the Truth, the Life. But in reality is Jesus Christ that saves, and that, through faith.


If that doesn't do it, then I am willing to wait for you to tell me how being a synergist means you are not saved. Or how being a monergist means you are saved.

 

[makesends]

What does this mean?

I shouldn't have said it. My bad. I have deleted it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Ok. Let me try this: You said, "By defenition, if you are a synergist. you would not be saved." By definition of what —Synergist? A synergist is one who holds to the doctrine of Synergism. Simple as that. He could very well be saved, and be mistaken about how he is saved.

Monergists hold to monergism. None of us monergists understand the Gospel in its entirety. We too can have some concepts wrong. Witness how many of us see things differently here.

It is not our doctrine that saves. It is not our comprehension of the doctrine that saves. At best, it might be posited that the truth of the Gospel is what saves, because Salvific Faith is in that truth—Jesus Christ—the Way, the Truth, the Life. But in reality is Jesus Christ that saves, and that, through faith.


If that doesn't do it, then I am willing to wait for you to tell me how being a synergist means you are not saved. Or how being a monergist means you are saved.

I will try one more time. From what I see synergism and monergism are terms given to describe people who believe different ways

Ie. If you believe that God alone is the agent of salvation you are deemed a monergist

It’s not that he is saved or not saved by being a monergist it is that he believes he is saved by God alone. Ie grace. Ie his faith is on God not his works (as I see it).

A synergist is a term given to one who believes salvation can s a cooperative effort between god and man (ie in my view no t by grace alone but by grace plus works

It is not the synergistic term that saves them it is their faith in God plus self that determines their salvation and their rating as a monergist

We are saved by grace alone. Not if worjs

So belief we are saved by God alone is a true gospel and they would be saved.

Belief in grace plus works would be a false gospel and I do not believe they would be saved

So. Using this. A monergist may be saved. It’s not possible a person deemed as a synergist could be saved.

It’s not monergism or synergism that saves them it is what they believe.