Synergism

[Eternally-Grateful]

I knew someone would raise this point. Carbon pointed out that God would Cause us to walk in his Statutes; is God Culpable for this? Most likely you will say No; but what if God Caused us to walk in his Statutes; against our Will? Since we're initially at Enmity with God, the LORD has to Cause us to want to switch sides. I'm not trying to change the Subject, but am pointing out God Causes everything. Again, using the Lying Spirit account, God Caused the False prophets to Lie. But God Causes a thing for Good reasons; this is why God isn't Culpable. If God Caused you to kill your sister, he Meant it for Good; even if he only Meant it for the purpose of Punishing a Sinner in the Here and Now...

We love because he first loved us

Gratitude for Gods love causes us to walk in his ways

Again, I do not think he causes us against our will.

When we do evil We do it because of some inner thing. It all starts with pride.. God is not a prideful being *you could say he deserves that right, But it is not who he is)

Pride started at the fall.. Actually take that back. Pride started with Lucifer. And through Lucifer and his deception, it fell to man.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It seems obvious you’re a synergist.

I do not think I co-operated with God and saved myself

So I may think sanctification according to your interpretation of synergism. But as far as justification goes. I am far from it.

 

[fastfredy0]

RC Sproul said Sanctification is Synergistic.

Yes, R.C. Sproul did consider sanctification to be synergistic, but with some important qualifications.
Sproul, as a Reformed theologian, believed that justification is monergistic—that is, it is the work of God alone. But when it comes to sanctification, he taught that it involves both God and the believer—thus it is synergistic in nature.
Here’s how he put it in essence:“In sanctification, God works, and we work.”
Sproul emphasized that this doesn’t mean sanctification is a 50/50 partnership, or that God is dependent on us. Rather, the believer actively participates in the process of becoming more holy, empowered by the Holy Spirit. It's a cooperation, but one where God remains the ultimate source of strength and transformation.
He often referenced passages like Philippians 2:12–13:
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
So yes—Sproul affirmed the synergistic nature of sanctification, while holding tightly to God’s sovereign grace as the foundation of that cooperation. ChatGPT

ChatGPT's answer surprised me ... I would if Sproul would say the work of a hammer done by a carpenter was synergistic
I can't say I agree with Sproul, but the betting odds usually favor Sproul over myself.

 

[fastfredy0]

Could we have that quote please and the source so the full context can be viewed?

See post #123 ...it found the statement that Sproul though sanctification is synergistic to be true

 

[Arial]

Yes, R.C. Sproul did consider sanctification to be synergistic, but with some important qualifications.
Sproul, as a Reformed theologian, believed that justification is monergistic—that is, it is the work of God alone. But when it comes to sanctification, he taught that it involves both God and the believer—thus it is synergistic in nature.
Here’s how he put it in essence:“In sanctification, God works, and we work.”
Sproul emphasized that this doesn’t mean sanctification is a 50/50 partnership, or that God is dependent on us. Rather, the believer actively participates in the process of becoming more holy, empowered by the Holy Spirit. It's a cooperation, but one where God remains the ultimate source of strength and transformation.
He often referenced passages like Philippians 2:12–13:
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
So yes—Sproul affirmed the synergistic nature of sanctification, while holding tightly to God’s sovereign grace as the foundation of that cooperation. ChatGPT

ChatGPT's answer surprised me ... I would if Sproul would say the work of a hammer done by a carpenter was synergistic
I can't say I agree with Sproul, but the betting odds usually favor Sproul over myself.

It involves us, sure. We are the ones being sanctified. And we are not passive. He created us as creatures that do things, not wooden or clay puppets.It is difficult to state that one believes maybe Sproul should have just explained what he meant (and Chat GPT is going to pick up that word and naturally conclude that is what he said, since he did. But it does not clarify what he might have meant because it does not give the context.) instead of throwing the word synergism into the mix. So I won't do that. As for me---I agree with the hammer thing. I would never attach synergism to sanctification. I would attach human responsibility to it.

 

[Arial]

See post #123 ...it found the statement that Sproul though sanctification is synergistic to be true

Could you do me a quick favor and go here and see if the link I posted opens. @ElectedbyHim said it wouldn't for him but it does for me.

Post in thread 'With a Reformed prompt, ChatGPT produces amazing theology'

Friday at 3:14 PM

Here is a good one and an excellent FYI
chatgpt.com/c/67f02a63-f524-8008-8c68-df947f6a7fc3

• Arial

 

[ReverendRV]

We love because he first loved us

Gratitude for Gods love causes us to walk in his ways

Again, I do not think he causes us against our will.

When we do evil We do it because of some inner thing. It all starts with pride.. God is not a prideful being *you could say he deserves that right, But it is not who he is)

Pride started at the fall.. Actually take that back. Pride started with Lucifer. And through Lucifer and his deception, it fell to man.

Oh yeah, I forgot; you don't listen to what is said...

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, R.C. Sproul did consider sanctification to be synergistic, but with some important qualifications.
Sproul, as a Reformed theologian, believed that justification is monergistic—that is, it is the work of God alone. But when it comes to sanctification, he taught that it involves both God and the believer—thus it is synergistic in nature.
Here’s how he put it in essence:“In sanctification, God works, and we work.”
Sproul emphasized that this doesn’t mean sanctification is a 50/50 partnership, or that God is dependent on us. Rather, the believer actively participates in the process of becoming more holy, empowered by the Holy Spirit. It's a cooperation, but one where God remains the ultimate source of strength and transformation.
He often referenced passages like Philippians 2:12–13:
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
So yes—Sproul affirmed the synergistic nature of sanctification, while holding tightly to God’s sovereign grace as the foundation of that cooperation. ChatGPT

ChatGPT's answer surprised me ... I would if Sproul would say the work of a hammer done by a carpenter was synergistic
I can't say I agree with Sproul, but the betting odds usually favor Sproul over myself.

Yeah, it's neat. Another, "I think we're close but miles apart". Deep things that are simple too...

 

[ReverendRV]

It involves us, sure. We are the ones being sanctified. And we are not passive. He created us as creatures that do things, not wooden or clay puppets.It is difficult to state that one believes maybe Sproul should have just explained what he meant (and Chat GPT is going to pick up that word and naturally conclude that is what he said, since he did. But it does not clarify what he might have meant because it does not give the context.) instead of throwing the word synergism into the mix. So I won't do that. As for me---I agree with the hammer thing. I would never attach synergism to sanctification. I would attach human responsibility to it.

I think Sproul knew what he was doing; it's a Pushbutton moment. Certainly he didn't mean it in the non Calvinist way, but he meant it to spark a controversy with us...

I find it interesting that @brightfame52 gets it more than the rest of Us do...

 

[Carbon]

I do not think I co-operated with God and saved myself

I didn't think for one minute you thought such a thing.

So I may think sanctification according to your interpretation of synergism. But as far as justification goes. I am far from it.

Yes, I know.

 

[fastfredy0]

Would you do me a quick favor and go here and see if the link I posted opens

ChatGPT responded with "Unable to load conversation"

 

[Carbon]

It involves us, sure. We are the ones being sanctified. And we are not passive. He created us as creatures that do things, not wooden or clay puppets.

Amen sister. for it is God who is at work in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure Phil 2:13.

This, I believe, means that a Christian in striving to promote his spiritual well being must labor in conscious dependence on the grace of God, who has taken the initiative in saving him. But of course it also means much more than that, it means that a Christian in seeking to climb the mount of sanctification never works alone, as though he were an independent agent, who proceeds under his own power. It is not that God and the believer work side by side in sanctification, but that it is God who actually causes the believer to fight the good fight against sin, or, if you will, God sanctifies the believer by employing the believer as His agent in this saving process.

It is difficult to state that one believes maybe Sproul should have just explained what he meant (and Chat GPT is going to pick up that word and naturally conclude that is what he said, since he did.

I agree that Spropul didn't explain it that clearly, but that wasn't his intention in that particular teaching either.

But it does not clarify what he might have meant because it does not give the context.) instead of throwing the word synergism into the mix. So I won't do that. As for me---I agree with the hammer thing. I would never attach synergism to sanctification. I would attach human responsibility to it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I asked chat gpt what RC Sprout's View was and got this answer:

From a theocentric, Reformed perspective, R.C. Sproul's view of sanctification was monergistic. This means that he believed sanctification, like salvation, is primarily the work of God and not a cooperative effort between God and the believer.

Sproul, in alignment with Reformed theology, taught that sanctification is a work of God's grace, where the Holy Spirit transforms the believer over time to conform to the image of Christ. He emphasized that while believers are called to pursue holiness and to mortify sin, the power to do so is entirely from God. In this process, God enables the believer's will to align with His purposes.

Although there is a human responsibility in the process of sanctification (such as striving for holiness and living according to God's Word), it is not synergistic in the sense that humans contribute to the process in a co-equal manner with God. Instead, God’s work in the believer is primary, with the believer responding to God’s grace.

In summary, Sproul held to a monergistic view of sanctification, where God's sovereign grace is the ultimate cause of a believer's growth in holiness, though the believer actively engages in the process through obedience and reliance on God's strength.


ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.




I thought it might be helpful to ask differently,

 

[Carbon]

I asked chat gpt what RC Sprout's View was and got this answer:

From a theocentric, Reformed perspective, R.C. Sproul's view of sanctification was monergistic. This means that he believed sanctification, like salvation, is primarily the work of God and not a cooperative effort between God and the believer.

Sproul, in alignment with Reformed theology, taught that sanctification is a work of God's grace, where the Holy Spirit transforms the believer over time to conform to the image of Christ. He emphasized that while believers are called to pursue holiness and to mortify sin, the power to do so is entirely from God. In this process, God enables the believer's will to align with His purposes.

Although there is a human responsibility in the process of sanctification (such as striving for holiness and living according to God's Word), it is not synergistic in the sense that humans contribute to the process in a co-equal manner with God. Instead, God’s work in the believer is primary, with the believer responding to God’s grace.

In summary, Sproul held to a monergistic view of sanctification, where God's sovereign grace is the ultimate cause of a believer's growth in holiness, though the believer actively engages in the process through obedience and reliance on God's strength.


ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.




I thought it might be helpful to ask differently.

I think that's an accurate reply. Well, it is actually how I understand Sproul's beliefs on sanctification. When listening to Sproul's many teachings, I always noticed his teachings are always monergistic in doctrine or at the least hinted towards it with out actually saying it.

 

[makesends]

Whatever comes of this Thread is okay. I feel as if my point was so good, that brightframe even agreed

Brightfame's ok, really. Just sometimes gets a little carried away --with his affirmations!!

 

[makesends]

I asked chat gpt what RC Sprout's View was and got this answer:

From a theocentric, Reformed perspective, R.C. Sproul's view of sanctification was monergistic. This means that he believed sanctification, like salvation, is primarily the work of God and not a cooperative effort between God and the believer.

Sproul, in alignment with Reformed theology, taught that sanctification is a work of God's grace, where the Holy Spirit transforms the believer over time to conform to the image of Christ. He emphasized that while believers are called to pursue holiness and to mortify sin, the power to do so is entirely from God. In this process, God enables the believer's will to align with His purposes.

Although there is a human responsibility in the process of sanctification (such as striving for holiness and living according to God's Word), it is not synergistic in the sense that humans contribute to the process in a co-equal manner with God. Instead, God’s work in the believer is primary, with the believer responding to God’s grace.

In summary, Sproul held to a monergistic view of sanctification, where God's sovereign grace is the ultimate cause of a believer's growth in holiness, though the believer actively engages in the process through obedience and reliance on God's strength.


ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.




I thought it might be helpful to ask differently,

Yep. Mistake.

 

[Hazelelponi]

John Calvin's view of sanctification is central to his theology, reflecting his deep commitment to the sovereignty of God and the work of Christ in the believer’s life. To understand Calvin’s understanding of sanctification, we must first grasp the foundational aspects of his theological system, especially the doctrines of justification, regeneration, and union with Christ, all of which interconnect in the process of sanctification.

Calvin’s Doctrine of Sanctification​

In the Reformed tradition, sanctification refers to the ongoing work of God in the life of a believer, making them more like Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Calvin does not separate justification from sanctification, though he does distinguish between them. Justification is God’s declaration of righteousness upon the believer, based solely on Christ’s atoning work. Sanctification, however, is the transformation of the believer’s life and character, a process that occurs after justification and continues throughout the believer’s life.

1.​

For Calvin, sanctification is ultimately the work of God. He emphasizes that the believer, in their own strength, cannot attain holiness. It is God who works in the believer’s life through the Holy Spirit, who indwells and empowers them to live a holy life. Calvin writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that “the whole process of sanctification is carried out by the Spirit of God.”^1 He speaks of the Holy Spirit as the agent of sanctification, who transforms the heart, renews the mind, and enables the believer to overcome sin.

Calvin stresses that sanctification is not merely about external conformity to moral laws but a deep internal transformation. It is the renewal of the believer’s heart and mind, producing true holiness. In the Institutes (Book III, Chapter 3), he states:

“Sanctification, which is the work of God’s Spirit, consists in the daily renewal of the believer in righteousness and true holiness, which is continually perfected in the believer's life.”^2

2.​

Central to Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification is the believer’s union with Christ. Calvin often teaches that sanctification is not a self-generated or autonomous process, but is grounded in the believer’s mystical union with Christ through faith. The believer’s identification with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:4) is pivotal in the process of sanctification. Calvin sees Christ as the sanctifier, and it is by being united to Christ that believers receive the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

For Calvin, union with Christ is not just a legal or forensic bond but a living, organic union. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30, Calvin writes:

“Christ is made to us sanctification, not by any external rite or ceremony, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, through whom we are made partakers of His life, His purity, and His righteousness.”^3

Thus, sanctification is a participation in the life of Christ, with the believer being conformed more and more to His image.

3.​

Calvin maintains that the law is crucial in the process of sanctification, though it is not the means by which justification is attained. While the law cannot justify, it still serves as a guide to the Christian life, revealing the moral will of God. Calvin teaches that the law functions as a mirror, reflecting both the righteousness of God and the believer’s shortcomings. The law, in this way, drives believers to Christ for grace and then directs them in their sanctification, leading them toward godliness.

Furthermore, Calvin underscores the necessity of the means of grace—primarily the Word, sacraments, and prayer—in the believer's sanctification. The preaching of the Word, in particular, is crucial in this process, as it is through the Word that the Holy Spirit works to convict, encourage, and strengthen believers in their walk with Christ. In Institutes III, 2, Calvin remarks:

"For by the Word of God we are called, by the Word of God we are strengthened, and by the Word of God we are perfected."^4

4.​

Calvin does not teach that sanctification is a completed work at conversion. Rather, it is a lifelong process. The believer is progressively conformed to the image of Christ through the work of the Spirit. This progressive nature of sanctification aligns with Calvin’s emphasis on perseverance. He acknowledges that Christians continue to struggle with sin, but the process of sanctification ensures that sin’s dominion is progressively weakened.

Calvin describes sanctification as a "battle" against remaining sin. This tension between the already and the not yet of sanctification is a key aspect of his doctrine. While believers are already justified and made positionally holy in Christ, they are yet being sanctified in their practical experience. Calvin writes:

“The battle against sin and the flesh is ongoing until the day of our final redemption when we will be made completely holy in the presence of God.”^5

This anticipates the final glorification, which will fully complete the work of sanctification in the believer's life.

Summary: Calvin’s View of Sanctification in Reformed Thought​

John Calvin's view of sanctification is deeply theological and Christ-centered. It emphasizes that sanctification is an act of God, carried out by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Calvin asserts that believers are sanctified by their union with Christ, who is the ultimate sanctifier. Sanctification is not an isolated or autonomous work but involves the means of grace—the Word, sacraments, and prayer. It is a progressive process, with the believer constantly growing in holiness, even as they struggle with sin. Ultimately, sanctification points to the final glory, when believers will be completely conformed to the image of Christ in the new heavens and new earth.

Calvin’s doctrine of sanctification provides a balanced view that preserves the glory of God’s work in salvation while recognizing the genuine effort required on the part of the believer to grow in grace. For the believers, this understanding of sanctification leads to a life of humble dependence on God's grace, a life marked by both spiritual growth and the ongoing pursuit of holiness.

---

References:

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.3.3.
2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.3.5.
3. John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.2.8.
5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.3.6.

 

[makesends]

Josheb said:
Is human volition a secondary cause? Or, worded differently, does human volition contain any causality? Is causality an attribute of human volition?

Of course it is! Human volition sits smack dab between antecedent causes and its own effects. "Is causality an attribute of human volition?" Lol, what does that even mean?

You just contradicted yourself.

Rule 4.4 applies here. And so, next spot down I try to show otherwise, in an attempt to find agreement on whether or not I contradicted myself. At this point, I disagree that I contradicted myself.

It's not logically possible to affirm something not understood. The Oxford Dictionary definition of "attribute" is: "a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something." So our (Rev's and my) earlier oint is that human volition possesses the attribute of causality; causality is an inherent quality or feature of human volition.

Leaving alone your little axiom for now, I understood just fine. If the definition of "attribute" is "a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.", causality is no more an attribute of the human than it is of anything else. Causality is not inherent to anything but God, unless it is inherent to everything that causes further effects.

Granted, you did say that it is a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part, and, thus, I suppose, attributed, but the same could be said about anything else that is both effect and cause. The attribution that most people attach to willed beings, to me, is the only difference here. Plain logic does not, though the willed causation by humans may be a bit more of a complication to explain.

That attribute is seriously compromised by sin such that the causality of the corruptible-but-not-yet-corrupted human will is different from the sin-corrupted will, and both are different from the will of the person regenerate and indwelt. Soteriologically speaking, the chief difference is the inability of the sinner, the sinfully-corrupted human to effect his or her own salvation volitionally. S/he has lost that causality, that causal attribute to their volition. There was a time when God walked with humans and they had complete liberty to eat from the tree of life (which is Jesus). Sin changed and prevented that, eradicating that attribute of volition, making worthless and impotent any and all effort to work toward that goal. Only God could change that condition, and he did, through His Son Jesus the resurrection and the life. Salvation is monergistic. Having been restored to some greater degree of volitional agency the saved become capable of good works (in the already-saved stated, only in the already-saved state).

No because we are discussing volitional agency, causal agency, not the merely physical cause-and-effect of inanimate objects moving through time and space. The ground does not decide whether or not to be unyielding when someone jumps off a skyscraper.

1) Think it through and 2) intermediate causes are what the WCF calls "secondary" causes and as we have often discussed previously and @ReverendRV had here emphasized..... they have liberty and contingency correlated with that liberty. It is not a liberty-less contingency, a liberty-less secondary cause. That is not an "implication," it is a openly stated, bluntly, directly, overtly stated assertion in the WCF.

We have centuries of empirical research demonstrating 1) the ability to "program" humans so their will is overcome AND 2a) the inability to program humans so their will is overcome, such that 2b) no matter what is brought to bear on a single moment of decisions humans possess the ability to rebel and do something different, something opposite, something dynamic...... especially if they are aware of what would otherwise be predicate causes. It really irritates strictly behavioral psychologists to no end .

Part of the problem with the doctrine of salvation is too many think volition is relevant. It's not!

Right! So, if volition is not relevant, the difference in attributing causation to humans (as apposed to animals) is irrelevant.

This is also true of Christology. Framing Jesus' obedience in terms of volition and behavior (teleology) instead of his inherent nature (ontology) is a huge mistake. There's never been a point in Jesus' existence when he ever paused for even a fraction of a nanosecond and asked himself, "What do I want? Do I want to do what my Father asked (or commended)?" That's just dumb and reveals an appalling ignorance. When we get raised to be incorruptible and immortal we won't be automatons. We will be creatures, created creatures, with a completely different ontology; one where "Hmmm.... should I......?" is never thought, never considered, never asked because any condition prompting the inquiry has ceased to exist. Much of what I have described here appears to be unique to humans. The angels do not appear to have the volitional agency humans have in any of the three states I mentioned.

Regardless, on this side of the grave - for both humans and angels - disobedience is always lethal and compliant (it serves only God's purpose). Only in Christ is there any alternative and the angels do not have that option. Salvation is provided solely for those bearing God's image...... and God never stops and asks, "Hey, would you like to be saved from the sin that enslaves you and will result in your destruction?" If that were the case 1) we'd find that stated in scripture, 2) there'd be a lot more visibly/audibly saved, 3) and the question "Am I saved?" would never (rationally) be asked.

Synergism has mucked all of this up one way or another.

Now, if your claim that I contradicted myself is based on your 'little axiom' alone, and that claim is only supported by your implication that I misunderstood attribution, then say so, and I will happily destroy your axiom.

 

[makesends]

Sure you have; for instance, the Hypostatic Union...

Every bit of that Doctrine is as True as any Verse in the Bible...

As stated in anyone's doctrinal statements, no, it is not as true as what God says about himself-- the whole of the Bible.

 

[ReverendRV]

As stated in anyone's doctrinal statements, no, it is not as true as what God says about himself-- the whole of the Bible.

Please explain. It's as True as anything the Bible says about the GodMan, right? Where does the Hypostatic Union differ from the Bible?

Does Calvinism differ from the Bible?