Synergism

[Eternally-Grateful]

That's a long way from all that defines Provisionism. Even a Calvinist could agree with, "God has made provision for the salvation of all people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. ...God desire...the reconciliation and restoration of all things through Christ." It is once again too vague.

Maybe that can demonstrate why so many here had a problem with "Free Will" being defined as "the ability to choose between two or more options."

I figured it was just a basic overview, just trying to understand. I am sure it goes much deeper and we all have our views of what it means

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It's what I mean. The Bible and Theology, (Sound Doctrine), are like the example of the plant that grows from the Seed; "There is an Oak Tree in every Acorn". It's probably the Fundamentalist in me; the Fundamentals are True Truth...


Theology done right, is as Good as the Bible. Calvinism's Total Depravity is as Good as the Bible; IE Romans 1-3. I guess I need to write that Gospel Tract I keep threatening to write; titled Divine Syllogism. The Premises of Romans 1-3 are the Falleness of Man, the Conclusion in Romans 3 is that No one does Good, no not One...

What is Theology if not God's Divine Syllogism?

Another term..ughh

 

[Josheb]

You say, above, "The statement in question was 1),". You don't show what that statement was. I'm not sure what you are referring to. I will quote #52 here:

Or was 1) from some other post?

Anyhow, if I get you right, you affirm that it was your axiom that demonstrates my self-contradiction, and not so much the above question. So I will work off of that:

As I remember, I asked the meaning of only part of it-- the term, "attribute". I understood what 'attribute' means to me, which is why I brought it up, since it didn't fit there for human causality anymore than it fits for any other causality (but God's).

Now here you finally explain yourself. I affirmed causality as an attribute of volition only in the one respect--if causality also was an attribute of any other effect-become-cause. Otherwise, the term, "attribute" did not fit (in my mind).

But you insist that it does, as though, unlike other causes, mankind is endowed with the ability to shed off ALL influences but God and a "sin depraving condition". I disagree rather vehemently. Human volition is NOT able to act in antithesis to all predicates. Any that it is aware of and chooses to act in defiance of or to ignore it (or that it is not aware of and accidently acts in antithesis to), by negation is acting in response to (or not by conscious will does the same). Thus, no. But, if. at the best, you can say that any predicates can be acted in antithesis to, you still can not say that all of them can be acted in antithesis to in any one decision. And, again, as I said, if one is acting in antithesis to something, it is acting BECAUSE OF that thing, though against it. Thus, still influenced, and if influenced, caused.

The fact you did not understand what I said below that, as sufficiently describing my understanding, does not render it undescribed. But it seems that is unrelated to your previous assertion of my self-contradiction. I will refrain from describing it as quite off-topic.

At times you seem to get it, at other times, most definitely not, that there are perhaps millions or more causes (influences) that feed into any decision anyone (but God) makes, and that, at all sorts of levels of influence. Whether you reject some, ignore some, act in defiance to or in ignorance of or by shrugging off some or by otherwise making up your mind, or by a sudden off-the-wall choice, it was caused. The will is not uncaused, nor can it behave uncaused to behave as it is caused. It is only endemic to the person.

Now if you can show me how, logically, there is something that man does that God did not cause to happen, through means, (not at all saying that God can't cause one to do something that is not a result of any or all erstwhile causes), but that upholds your case that man can act in antithesis of all predicates, please do so.

Yep, the two other ones need to wait.

This is simple.

1. In order to affirm the (semi-)independent causality of human volitional agency, that causality must first be understood. Otherwise, what, exactly, would be affirmed?
2. The one particular point being asserted was the semi-independent* aspect of volitional agency, the very real attribute in which it exists as a cause in and of its own.

To clarify the second point: There are always predicate causes or influences on every decision in which the will is making a choice but that is not a point to which @ReverendRV or I were attending. It's not a point in dispute. We cannot say it is an uncaused cause because God is the only Uncaused Cause that exists. He caused all other causes, whether they be primary or secondary, whether they have any liberty or contingency or not. Human will is not free, but neither is it static. It is dynamic and not held captive by anything but God and when it comes to the agency of salvation (which is the specific subject being discussed in this thread), sin. Human will, in the a) uncorrupted stated, b) in the sin-corrupted state, and in the c) redeemed and regenerate state, has its own causality. That is how God made it. In the words of the WCF, He established it that way.

Therefore, aside from the contradiction of affirming something not understood, there is the factual error (and the resulting red herring) of framing what Rev and I were asserting as a causal-only condition when it is not. We weren't asserting what you subsequently described. Now, if the "What does that mean?" inquiry was rhetorical then that's a matter easily resolved. Just let me/us know it was a rhetorical question (and next time stick and emoji in there so the matter is clarified) and address the salient point of real volitional agency (not solely-conditionally determined causality). If you do not believe that condition exists, then that sort of ends the discussion because we're not likely to convince you of its existence this time around and it may be sufficient for us all to understand this is the point of departure in our views of volitional agency..... and I make note of this cul de sac because.....

It has nothing to do with monergism (which is the position we three share). It's only relevance to the op is that the synergist asserts volitional agency exists soteriologically, salvifically, in the sinfully dead and enslaved state. Soteriological synergism asserts the sinner's will is not so violated by sin that it cannot choose God salvifically. Some synergisms even assert the sinner can and will come to God, perhaps even actively seeking Him out for salvation, if only s/he has heard the gospel and with the faculties of his own God-made constitution think on it, understand what was heard, and asserted the God given not-sin-prevented volitional agency and choose salvation so that God will then save that sinner. This would be where Provisionism separates from Arminian or Wesleyan doctrines of salvation. Are you reading this @Eternally-Grateful?

The point being your emphasis on a strict, linear causality is not what Rev or I were broaching.









* I have amended my prior statement about volitional agency being independent of everything except God and sin to more accurately label that semi-independent simply because any limitation would preclude it from being wholly independent. Calling the will independent would be equivalent to say it is free and none of us three subscribe to that point of view.
.

 

[ReverendRV]

Another term..ughh

You wanna speaka our language; remember?

 

[ReverendRV]

This is simple.

1. In order to affirm the (semi-)independent causality of human volitional agency, that causality must first be understood. Otherwise, what, exactly, would be affirmed?
2. The one particular point being asserted was the semi-independent* aspect of volitional agency, the very real attribute in which it exists as a cause in and of its own.

To clarify the second point: There are always predicate causes or influences on every decision in which the will is making a choice but that is not a point to which @ReverendRV or I were attending. It's not a point in dispute. We cannot say it is an uncaused cause because God is the only Uncaused Cause that exists. He caused all other causes, whether they be primary or secondary, whether they have any liberty or contingency or not. Human will is not free, but neither is it static. It is dynamic and not held captive by anything but God and when it comes to the agency of salvation (which is the specific subject being discussed in this thread), sin. Human will, in the a) uncorrupted stated, b) in the sin-corrupted state, and in the c) redeemed and regenerate state, has its own causality. That is how God made it. In the words of the WCF, He established it that way.

Therefore, aside from the contradiction of affirming something not understood, there is the factual error (and the resulting red herring) of framing what Rev and I were asserting as a causal-only condition when it is not. We weren't asserting what you subsequently described. Now, if the "What does that mean?" inquiry was rhetorical then that's a matter easily resolved. Just let me/us know it was a rhetorical question (and next time stick and emoji in there so the matter is clarified) and address the salient point of real volitional agency (not solely-conditionally determined causality). If you do not believe that condition exists, then that sort of ends the discussion because we're not likely to convince you of its existence this time around and it may be sufficient for us all to understand this is the point of departure in our views of volitional agency..... and I make note of this cul de sac because.....

It has nothing to do with monergism (which is the position we three share). It's only relevance to the op is that the synergist asserts volitional agency exists soteriologically, salvifically, in the sinfully dead and enslaved state. Soteriological synergism asserts the sinner's will is not so violated by sin that it cannot choose God salvifically. Some synergisms even assert the sinner can and will come to God, perhaps even actively seeking Him out for salvation, if only s/he has heard the gospel and with the faculties of his own God-made constitution think on it, understand what was heard, and asserted the God given not-sin-prevented volitional agency and choose salvation so that God will then save that sinner. This would be where Provisionism separates from Arminian or Wesleyan doctrines of salvation. Are you reading this @Eternally-Grateful?

The point being your emphasis on a strict, linear causality is not what Rev or I were broaching.









* I have amended my prior statement about volitional agency being independent of everything except God and sin to more accurately label that semi-independent simply because any limitation would preclude it from being wholly independent. Calling the will independent would be equivalent to say it is free and none of us three subscribe to that point of view.
.

I think you say it very well. Perhaps the difference between you and I, is that I'm basic and you aren't. I've said it for years; the Church needs both types...

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You wanna speaka our language; remember?

i want us to speak each others language.

I did a Quick Look up this is basically what I found

Syllogism Definition​

What is a syllogism? Here’s a quick and simple definition:

A syllogism is a three-part logical argument, based on deductive reasoning, in which two premises are combined to arrive at a conclusion. So long as the premises of the syllogism are true and the syllogism is correctly structured, the conclusion will be true. An example of a syllogism is "All mammals are animals. All elephants are mammals. Therefore, all elephants are animals." In a syllogism, the more general premise is called the major premise ("All mammals are animals"). The more specific premise is called the minor premise ("All elephants are mammals"). The conclusion joins the logic of the two premises ("Therefore, all elephants are animals

 

[makesends]

It's what I mean. The Bible and Theology, (Sound Doctrine), are like the example of the plant that grows from the Seed; "There is an Oak Tree in every Acorn". It's probably the Fundamentalist in me; the Fundamentals are True Truth...


Theology done right, is as Good as the Bible. Calvinism's Total Depravity is as Good as the Bible; IE Romans 1-3. I guess I need to write that Gospel Tract I keep threatening to write; titled Divine Syllogism. The Premises of Romans 1-3 are the Falleness of Man, the Conclusion in Romans 3 is that No one does Good, no not One...

What is Theology if not God's Divine Syllogism?

Nah. Sorry. We are talking about limited human understanding put into humanly derived and humanly understood words, compared to God's exhaustive, precise and pure truth, against which humans find themselves beating their heads.

 

[ReverendRV]

i want us to speak each others language.

I did a Quick Look up this is basically what I found

Syllogism Definition​

What is a syllogism? Here’s a quick and simple definition:

Yes; and Romans 1-3 is Saint Paul's Syllogism, and the Holy Spirit's Divine Syllogism...

Have I started this Thread here? It's a Greater Sylogism, because God is Greater. No Christian should deny that "There is no one who does Good, no not One"; it's God's Conclusion to his Sylogism...


1 John 5:9. ESV If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater,


I try to debate using a, "Nail in the Coffin" approach; this should bury the Objection to Total Depravity. Continuing to fight, is one reason internet forums drive me crazy...

 

[makesends]

I figured it was just a basic overview, just trying to understand. I am sure it goes much deeper and we all have our views of what it means

Usually, in a debate-style discussion, (and this is part of why we use -isms and handles), what is distinctive about a particular point of view is in some way shown. That description of Provisionism doesn't show what is particularly Provisionism.

 

[Josheb]

I think you say it very well.

Thank you.

Perhaps the difference between you and I, is that I'm basic and you aren't. I've said it for years; the Church needs both types...

I don't talk this way in ordinary life. The elaborations aren't necessary in an ordinary conversation where we have access to all the many non-verbal cues that aide communication. In text-based mediums we have the problem of "anything that can be misconstrued probably will be misconstrued," even by the most well-intentioned reader. Furthermore, when two or more are gathered together ,asserting/defending the same position their different styles can complement each other. We fill in each others' "gaps," so to speak. My posts are better for your participation (and the other monergists gathered).

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yes; and Romans 1-3 is Saint Paul's Syllogism, and the Holy Spirit's Divine Syllogism...

Have I started this Thread here? It's a Greater Sylogism, because God is Greater. No Christian should deny that "There is no one who does Good, no not One"; it's God's Conclusion to his Sylogism...


1 John 5:9. ESV If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater,


I try to debate using a, "Nail in the Coffin" approach; this should bury the Objection to Total Depravity. Continuing to fight, is one reason internet forums drive me crazy...

Romans 1

The gentile world. Although the know God they did not give him glory, but were futile in their thoughts. They hid the truth of God for the lie. And made their own Gods.

God gave them over to their passions. But they have no excuse. Because not only do they know they are deserving ing of judgment, they love their sin so much they do it anyone

Roman’s 2. Gods answer to the jew

The Jew who judged the gentile. Mocked them as being sinners, and not like the righteous jews. God called them out as they are guilty of the same thing

God does not show favoritism

God “will repay each person according to what they have done. 7. ;To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8. ;But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9.There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10. but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

All who die apart from the law will perish outside the law. All who perish under the law will be judged by the law (God holds Israel to a Higher standard, as he does the church today)

He finishes in chapter 3

We are all guilty, there are non who are righteous no not one, For all have sinned and fall under Gods standard (perfection)

But what is the end result? It does nto matter if we are jew or greek. We can all have the same God.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 ven the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We see the end result
1. Everyone is guilty
2. Righteousness is given THROUGH FAITH in jesus to all and on all who believe
3. Justification (declaired righteousness) is free by His grace. But came at a great cost. The cost of redemption
4. God is the justifier of the one who has faith in God

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Usually, in a debate-style discussion, (and this is part of why we use -isms and handles), what is distinctive about a particular point of view is in some way shown. That description of Provisionism doesn't show what is particularly Provisionism.

Again, which is why I asked.

If someone uses a word. I try to understand, so I look it up. Then I share what I find, and the person is now able to share with me if what I found was true, or if it is missing something.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think I may have already answered this, but I'm not sure. Occurs to me to mention, I do see a difference in causal sequence, between Regeneration and Salvation, vs Sanctification. Sanctification is, all of it, causally subsequent to Regeneration. And Regeneration, Faith and Salvation are entirely of Grace, involving no act on the part of the elect. Sanctification does involve the act of the elect, though that too is of Grace. Just as an example, though we know that it is God who works all things together for good, it is, grammatically in the Greek, the things that work together. Again, though we know that it is God who works in us both to will and to do, we do will and act.

Maybe this is another thread.

I have had it in my mind that sanctification is better categorized by being "of faith", (which is gifted and then increased as we ask God for increase in provision according to His Divine Will), and acted upon in the strength of the new will (which needs exercise and practice) He has given us through the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells us.

I didn't have an already realized future before I was saved. I was not cognizant of there being one in this way.

We aren't striving to become something, we are striving to be what we already are in Christ, but can't yet see.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Maybe this is another thread.

I have had it in my mind that sanctification is better categorized by being "of faith", (which is gifted and then increased as we ask God for increase in provision according to His Divine Will), and acted upon in the strength of the new will (which needs exercise and practice) He has given us through the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells us.

I didn't have an already realized future before I was saved. I was not cognizant of there being one in this way.

We aren't striving to become something, we are striving to be what we already are in Christ, but can't yet see.

Wonderfully said

 

[makesends]

This is simple.

1. In order to affirm the (semi-)independent causality of human volitional agency, that causality must first be understood. Otherwise, what, exactly, would be affirmed?

My affirmation was of the continuance of causality, (linear or otherwise--I'm not even sure what you mean by linear, unless only that a line could theoretically be traced back to first cause) in which all effects-become-causes share, and not just human volition. I was not affirming whatever the wording was before you amended it to semi-independent (and thank you for at least amending that). Nevertheless, I would like a more precise explanation of "semi-independent", as to how that is even possible. To my mind it rings somewhere between the Self-Determinist's oxymoronic claim of 'partly autonomous' and their vague, 'spontaneous'.

1. The one particular point being asserted was the semi-independent* aspect of volitional agency, the very real attribute in which it exists as a cause in and of its own.

In which WHAT exists as a cause in and of its own-- volitional agency, or semi-independence?

But let me ask you this--did you see any real difference between this opinion of yours and the Arminian's notions? --Could I not ask you whether it makes sense that God, looking down the corridors of time, knew before making those corridors and their periferals, what would happen, created them anyway? I know you know better than to think like them, yet, here you are with a statement so similar to theirs that I'm confounded.

To clarify the second point: There are always predicate causes or influences on every decision in which the will is making a choice but that is not a point to which @ReverendRV or I were attending. It's not a point in dispute. We cannot say it is an uncaused cause because God is the only Uncaused Cause that exists. He caused all other causes, whether they be primary or secondary, whether they have any liberty or contingency or not.

Well, that's good. So glad you amended that.

Human will is not free, but neither is it static. It is dynamic and not held captive by anything but God and when it comes to the agency of salvation (which is the specific subject being discussed in this thread), sin. Human will, in the a) uncorrupted stated, b) in the sin-corrupted state, and in the c) redeemed and regenerate state, has its own causality. That is how God made it. In the words of the WCF, He established it that way.

If 'dynamic' is the only alternative to 'static', then it cannot be defined as 'self-changing', but merely 'changing'. In other words, the fact that there is dynamic becomes irrelevant, unless you have something else to show me.

Therefore, aside from the contradiction of affirming something not understood, there is the factual error (and the resulting red herring) of framing what Rev and I were asserting as a causal-only condition when it is not. We weren't asserting what you subsequently described. Now, if the "What does that mean?" inquiry was rhetorical then that's a matter easily resolved. Just let me/us know it was a rhetorical question (and next time stick and emoji in there so the matter is clarified) and address the salient point of real volitional agency (not solely-conditionally determined causality). If you do not believe that condition exists, then that sort of ends the discussion because we're not likely to convince you of its existence this time around and it may be sufficient for us all to understand this is the point of departure in our views of volitional agency..... and I make note of this cul de sac because.....

Since you were wrong about it being self-contradiction there is no need to question whether or not it was rhetorical question--that, too, would be a red herring.

It has nothing to do with monergism (which is the position we three share). It's only relevance to the op is that the synergist asserts volitional agency exists soteriologically, salvifically, in the sinfully dead and enslaved state. Soteriological synergism asserts the sinner's will is not so violated by sin that it cannot choose God salvifically. Some synergisms even assert the sinner can and will come to God, perhaps even actively seeking Him out for salvation, if only s/he has heard the gospel and with the faculties of his own God-made constitution think on it, understand what was heard, and asserted the God given not-sin-prevented volitional agency and choose salvation so that God will then save that sinner. This would be where Provisionism separates from Arminian or Wesleyan doctrines of salvation. Are you reading this @Eternally-Grateful?

The point being your emphasis on a strict, linear causality is not what Rev or I were broaching.

Yet, somehow, it wasn't off topic for you to deal with my supposed self-contradiction.

* I have amended my prior statement about volitional agency being independent of everything except God and sin to more accurately label that semi-independent simply because any limitation would preclude it from being wholly independent. Calling the will independent would be equivalent to say it is free and none of us three subscribe to that point of view.
.

Agreed that it cannot be wholly independent. To say that it could is, well...

 

[Josheb]

My affirmation was of the continuance of causality, (linear or otherwise--I'm not even sure what you mean by linear, unless only that a line could theoretically be traced back to first cause) in which all effects-become-causes share, and not just human volition. I was not affirming whatever the wording was before you amended it to semi-independent (and thank you for at least amending that). Nevertheless, I would like a more precise explanation of "semi-independent", as to how that is even possible. To my mind it rings somewhere between the Self-Determinist's oxymoronic claim of 'partly autonomous' and their vague, 'spontaneous'.

In which WHAT exists as a cause in and of its own-- volitional agency, or semi-independence?

But let me ask you this--did you see any real difference between this opinion of yours and the Arminian's notions? --Could I not ask you whether it makes sense that God, looking down the corridors of time, knew before making those corridors and their periferals, what would happen, created them anyway? I know you know better than to think like them, yet, here you are with a statement so similar to theirs that I'm confounded.

Well, that's good. So glad you amended that.

If 'dynamic' is the only alternative to 'static', then it cannot be defined as 'self-changing', but merely 'changing'. In other words, the fact that there is dynamic becomes irrelevant, unless you have something else to show me.

Since you were wrong about it being self-contradiction there is no need to question whether or not it was rhetorical question--that, too, would be a red herring.

Yet, somehow, it wasn't off topic for you to deal with my supposed self-contradiction.

Agreed that it cannot be wholly independent. To say that is could is, well...

Thank you for your time.