Synergism

[makesends]

The synergism comes in only after we have been made a new creature, in that aspect its totally monergism, but when created anew, the new man energized by the Spirit cooperates in the conversion experience being granted both repentance and faith to do Gods will. However this has nothing to do with the old nature of the flesh, its dead in this conversion process. So both faith and repentance are not of the flesh, but of the Newly Created Man in Christ. So they are evidences of having been made a New Man

"Conversion experience" is a pretty broad term. I wonder where is the cutoff point between Salvation and subsequent reactions to being regenerated, or if there even is one, in that term. And why, "conversion"? Is that equating with Salvation? Perhaps I'm criticizing excessively, but the accommodating modern sound of "conversion experience" seems to me to kiss the indecorous rear end of the modern mindset that subordinates scripture to to empiricism, or worse, to subjectivism.

In the final analysis, though, as @Hazelelponi says, ALL the credit goes to God, because even our "cooperation" (another broad term) falls under the description, For it is God who works in you, both to will and to do according to his good purpose.

 

[makesends]

Would you agree with the WCF that the Liberty of our Will is established as a Secondary Causation, and this applies even to the Gift of Faith? Would you agree with Sproul it applies to our Sanctification during Perseverance?

I don't read the WCF to say that. It only says "...nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." The last clause, "but rather established" refers grammatically to "the liberty or contingency of second causes", not to "the will of the creatures". However, it is obvious logically that the will of creatures is also established by God, no matter what the WCF does or does not say. The Liberty of our Will, though, is a different matter. Logic does not demand that there even is such a thing.

The WCF is concise, and in their attempt to be so, yet accommodating to many authors it seems they have gotten a little vague with that term, "Liberty". So much so that someone as precise as @Josheb has taken the term to color their meaning by, "contingency".

Having said all that, I do agree that God has (rather obviously) established second causes, though "liberty" is not a word I would incorporate into that thought.

 

[Hazelelponi]

"Conversion experience" is a pretty broad term. I wonder where is the cutoff point between Salvation and subsequent reactions to being regenerated, or if there even is one, in that term. And why, "conversion"? Is that equating with Salvation? Perhaps I'm criticizing excessively, but the accommodating modern sound of "conversion experience" seems to me to kiss the indecorous rear end of the modern mindset that subordinates scripture to to empiricism, or worse, to subjectivism.

In the final analysis, though, as @Hazelelponi says, ALL the credit goes to God, because even our "cooperation" (another broad term) falls under the description, For it is God who works in you, both to will and to do according to his good purpose.

Let me ask because this is how I see it okay?

But I put all of salvation to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. (God generally). But all the work of salvation and sanctification particularly.

Then me? I forget about it because I'm not here to be saving myself, according to Scripture and good sense, that's what Jesus did so I concentrate on what I should be doing.

And I'm supposed to be doing works to give as an offering to God,(Hebrews 13:16) worthless though my works are, because I love God and have gratitude and thankfulness for what He did for me, in bringing me inti His Kingdom and calling me a loved daughter. (John 3:1-3)

And I'm supposed to be learning how to be His daughter because I'm the daughter of a King and that means I have familial duties (Galatians 5:13) and ambassador type duties (2 Corinthians 5:20) which I need to get better at learning.

And then as my responsibility to the Covenant and as a good daughter I also have to be obedient to my Father even if I don't particularly care for it (not perfect) but I can get over it as i'm in a new Kingdom now so I have to be obedient and get better at stuff.

Basically, I have everything I do in the worship of God or perhaps kicking myself category with no real in between.

I don't put what I do into some type of cooperative effort with God in sanctification. I don't know why we would do such a thing since our work is in the worship and adoption category right? Those are the categories I have been putting any working in anyway.

 

[brightfame52]

@makesends

Conversion experience" is a pretty broad term.

And its covered

I wonder where is the cutoff point between Salvation and subsequent reactions to being regenerated

Regeneration is a one time event, however conversion can be repeated as needed. For instance, I believe Peter was born again one time, but he may have needed and experienced conversions throughout his christian life. Here is one Lk 22:31-32

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

 

[brightfame52]

@makesends

ALL the credit goes to God, because even our "cooperation" (another broad term) falls under the description, For it is God who works in you, both to will and to do according to his good purpose.

Dont forget, conversion is applicable only to the already regenerated saved, because we still strive against the flesh. This has absolutely nothing to do with the unregenerate, they have no spiritual ability whatsoever, they are dead, they can not cooperate in anything until they are regenerated, made alive.

 

[Josheb]

I don't read the WCF to say that. It only says "...nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." The last clause, "but rather established" refers grammatically to "the liberty or contingency of second causes", not to "the will of the creatures". However, it is obvious logically that the will of creatures is also established by God, no matter what the WCF does or does not say. The Liberty of our Will, though, is a different matter. Logic does not demand that there even is such a thing.

The WCF is concise, and in their attempt to be so, yet accommodating to many authors it seems they have gotten a little vague with that term, "Liberty". So much so that someone as precise as @Josheb has taken the term to color their meaning by, "contingency".

I believe the salient point @ReverendRV is emphasizing is that the creature's will (or creatures' wills) is a secondary cause, or among the many secondary causes established by God (all of which may have liberty or contingency). (Rev, correct me if I erred)

Having said all that, I do agree that God has (rather obviously) established second causes, though "liberty" is not a word I would incorporate into that thought.

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

 

[ReverendRV]

The synergism comes in only after we have been made a new creature, in that aspect its totally monergism, but when created anew, the new man energized by the Spirit cooperates in the conversion experience being granted both repentance and faith to do Gods will. However this has nothing to do with the old nature of the flesh, its dead in this conversion process. So both faith and repentance are not of the flesh, but of the Newly Created Man in Christ. So they are evidences of having been made a New Man

Wow, this is one of the least Hyper things you've ever said!

 

[makesends]

Let me ask because this is how I see it okay?

But I put all of salvation to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. (God generally). But all the work of salvation and sanctification particularly.

Then me? I forget about it because I'm not here to be saving myself, according to Scripture and good sense, that's what Jesus did so I concentrate on what I should be doing.

And I'm supposed to be doing works to give as an offering to God,(Hebrews 13:16) worthless though my works are, because I love God and have gratitude and thankfulness for what He did for me, in bringing me inti His Kingdom and calling me a loved daughter. (John 3:1-3)

And I'm supposed to be learning how to be His daughter because I'm the daughter of a King and that means I have familial duties (Galatians 5:13) and ambassador type duties (2 Corinthians 5:20) which I need to get better at learning.

And then as my responsibility to the Covenant and as a good daughter I also have to be obedient to my Father even if I don't particularly care for it (not perfect) but I can get over it as i'm in a new Kingdom now so I have to be obedient and get better at stuff.

Basically, I have everything I do in the worship of God or perhaps kicking myself category with no real in between.

I don't put what I do into some type of cooperative effort with God in sanctification. I don't know why we would do such a thing since our work is in the worship and adoption category right? Those are the categories I have been putting any working in anyway.

I'm not sure what you are asking, in light of my post you quote. I don't see you as confused concerning any of this.

What you said was a good way to look at the question of monergism and synergism, and more particularly at sanctification.

 

[makesends]

@makesends



And its covered



Regeneration is a one time event, however conversion can be repeated as needed. For instance, I believe Peter was born again one time, but he may have needed and experienced conversions throughout his christian life. Here is one Lk 22:31-32

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Not that repentance isn't a kind of conversion, but the word you use as 'converted', in the interlinear is 'turned back', or, 'revert'. Anyhow, I've made my point and I'll leave it alone.

 

[makesends]

@makesends



Dont forget, conversion is applicable only to the already regenerated saved, because we still strive against the flesh. This has absolutely nothing to do with the unregenerate, they have no spiritual ability whatsoever, they are dead, they can not cooperate in anything until they are regenerated, made alive.

Yep. Nope, I haven't forgotten. Not even close.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm not sure what you are asking, in light of my post you quote. I don't see you as confused concerning any of this.

What you said was a good way to look at the question of monergism and synergism, and more particularly at sanctification.

I'm seeing myself as getting confused

Asked you because you might know me enough to be able to answer more clearly.

Since works seem to be at the heart I figured I did want some confirmation I am not myself miscategorizing somethings.

Hubby understands people who would say sanctification as synergistic because there's a response from us and God will chase us down until we give up and submit.

But I don't see putting our response in the sanctification category since it's all God..

But DH says he doesn't know about this second cause stuff (he doesn't know the WCF) and thinks he doesn't have to put everything in a little box... some things just are, and God will hunt us down if we run until we submit.

But maybe I want to not play so willy nilly and have everything in its right box that way I'm clear.

I'll just drop it. I like the way I have been thinking about it I guess. It seems the best way.

 

[makesends]

I believe the salient point @ReverendRV is emphasizing is that the creature's will (or creatures' wills) is a secondary cause, or among the many secondary causes established by God (all of which may have liberty or contingency). (Rev, correct me if I erred)

I agree, which I attempted to deal with next:
makesends said:
Having said all that, I do agree that God has (rather obviously) established second causes, though "liberty" is not a word I would incorporate into that thought.

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? Attribute? Could you not similarly ask if causality is not an attribute of just about any effect-become-cause? Human volition, as I just finished saying, is both effect and cause. Why didn't you simply ask if human volition causes things? Because it's too obvious that it does?

But there's no implication that just because it does cause, and is itself a 'second cause', and is, itself, unlike most other causes, a willed cause, that it is not also an effect of many other causes, and that, in EVERY particular.

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm seeing myself as getting confused

Asked you because you might know me enough to be able to answer more clearly.

Since works seem to be at the heart I figured I did want some confirmation I am not myself miscategorizing somethings.

Hubby understands people who would say sanctification as synergistic because there's a response from us and God will chase us down until we give up and submit.

But I don't see putting our response in the sanctification category since it's all God..

But DH says he doesn't know about this second cause stuff (he doesn't know the WCF) and thinks he doesn't have to put everything in a little box... some things just are, and God will hunt us down if we run until we submit.

But maybe I want to not play so willy nilly and have everything in its right box that way I'm clear.

I'll just drop it. I like the way I have been thinking about it I guess. It seems the best way.

Theology is not a Box, it's Sequential. A+B=C...

 

[ReverendRV]

I agree, which I attempted to deal with next:
makesends said:
Having said all that, I do agree that God has (rather obviously) established second causes, though "liberty" is not a word I would incorporate into that thought.

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? Attribute? Could you not similarly ask if causality is not an attribute of just about any effect-become-cause? Human volition, as I just finished saying, is both effect and cause. Why didn't you simply ask if human volition causes things? Because it's too obvious that it does?

But there's no implication that just because it does cause, and is itself a 'second cause', and is itself, unlike most other causes, a willed cause, that it is not also an effect of many other causes, and that, in EVERY particular.

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

 

[Hazelelponi]

Theology is not a Box, it's Sequential. A+B

Or - It's trying to understand/define/categorize this new reality we found ourselves in because it might help to share this cogently.

There's no words, no language encompasses.

So we have theology. That's what I thought.

 

[ReverendRV]

Or - It's trying to understand/define/categorize this new reality we found ourselves in because it might help to share this cogently.

There's no words, no language encompasses.

So we have theology. That's what I thought.

I'm big on Theology. Done right; it's as good as the Bible...


Proof in a Box! ~ by ReverendRV * August 18

Mark 16:14 NIV; Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

On an open Forum an Atheist asked this question; ‘Suppose you were given a box and told that within it contains ironclad proof for the existence of God; would you open it?’. The overwhelming answer given by the Atheists was a resounding ‘YES’, jumping at that chance if it were to present itself. Some Christians answered by saying ‘No’; but I answered ‘Yes’. ~ I told them that the Bible is the Box they are looking for. Many people would reject this idea and say that they have already opened that box and found it to be empty. But I wondered that if they had opened the Bible with the same zeal they expressed about the supposed Box, maybe they would have had a different result and spotted some proof? History has shown us that some great Minds have set out to refute the Bible, opening it and expecting to find nothing; but seeing the proof they didn’t expect. ~ C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Simon Greenleaf and Josh McDowell are but a few notable names of such people; research them and see how a genuine search can make a difference; do a little homework…

When you open the Bible and find it’s empty, close it back up and use the key of hopeful expectations, the zeal which was expressed by the respondents on that Forum; and try again. One of the best proofs you will find in the Box are the Dead Sea Scrolls. These copies of the Bible are the oldest that we have, in some cases predating the New Testament by 50-200 years. This shows the faithful transcribing of the Scriptures, since they are nearly a perfect match to what we have in our Bibles today. Since there are two complete copies of the Book of Isaiah within them, we can see that the Prophecies of a coming Messiah were not rewritten to picture Jesus; they picture Christ on their own. Even though this is the case, people still find ways to reject the point; but this rejection is not done in the spirit of those who gleefully wanted to open a Box of Proof. ~ A one page Gospel Tract will fall short of putting all Proofs on display. But even with a hundred Proofs, the Just shall live by Faith. We’re not Omniscient so we can’t be ‘a know it all’; but just know that Faith isn’t blind…

All have fallen short of the Glory of God; this is called Sin. All have Lied, Stolen, Hated and Lusted; thou shall not Covet! These are only a few of God’s Ten Commandments but the bad news is that when you’ve broken one of them, you are guilty of breaking all of them as if they were one Law. If God judged you by this, would you be innocent or guilty? Guilty Sinners are cast into God’s hellish Jail for all eternity. ~ But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to take the punishment for our Sin; the Just for the Unjust. Jesus died on a cross and shed his blood; he paid for our crime with his Life. But after being buried for three days he arose from the dead and was seen alive by 500 people. We are Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, apart from trying to earn Eternal Life. Confess Jesus as Lord, Repent of your Sins, find a Bible believing Church; and keep opening the Bible. ~ Turn its crank and it will be like music to your ears; and proof will leap out of it like a Jack in the Box. Don’t be found remaining in a stubborn refusal to believe…

Acts 1:3 KJV; To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm big on Theology. Done right; it's as good as the Bible...


Proof in a Box! ~ by ReverendRV * August 18

Mark 16:14 NIV; Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

On an open Forum an Atheist asked this question; ‘Suppose you were given a box and told that within it contains ironclad proof for the existence of God; would you open it?’. The overwhelming answer given by the Atheists was a resounding ‘YES’, jumping at that chance if it were to present itself. Some Christians answered by saying ‘No’; but I answered ‘Yes’. ~ I told them that the Bible is the Box they are looking for. Many people would reject this idea and say that they have already opened that box and found it to be empty. But I wondered that if they had opened the Bible with the same zeal they expressed about the supposed Box, maybe they would have had a different result and spotted some proof? History has shown us that some great Minds have set out to refute the Bible, opening it and expecting to find nothing; but seeing the proof they didn’t expect. ~ C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Simon Greenleaf and Josh McDowell are but a few notable names of such people; research them and see how a genuine search can make a difference; do a little homework…

When you open the Bible and find it’s empty, close it back up and use the key of hopeful expectations, the zeal which was expressed by the respondents on that Forum; and try again. One of the best proofs you will find in the Box are the Dead Sea Scrolls. These copies of the Bible are the oldest that we have, in some cases predating the New Testament by 50-200 years. This shows the faithful transcribing of the Scriptures, since they are nearly a perfect match to what we have in our Bibles today. Since there are two complete copies of the Book of Isaiah within them, we can see that the Prophecies of a coming Messiah were not rewritten to picture Jesus; they picture Christ on their own. Even though this is the case, people still find ways to reject the point; but this rejection is not done in the spirit of those who gleefully wanted to open a Box of Proof. ~ A one page Gospel Tract will fall short of putting all Proofs on display. But even with a hundred Proofs, the Just shall live by Faith. We’re not Omniscient so we can’t be ‘a know it all’; but just know that Faith isn’t blind…

All have fallen short of the Glory of God; this is called Sin. All have Lied, Stolen, Hated and Lusted; thou shall not Covet! These are only a few of God’s Ten Commandments but the bad news is that when you’ve broken one of them, you are guilty of breaking all of them as if they were one Law. If God judged you by this, would you be innocent or guilty? Guilty Sinners are cast into God’s hellish Jail for all eternity. ~ But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to take the punishment for our Sin; the Just for the Unjust. Jesus died on a cross and shed his blood; he paid for our crime with his Life. But after being buried for three days he arose from the dead and was seen alive by 500 people. We are Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, apart from trying to earn Eternal Life. Confess Jesus as Lord, Repent of your Sins, find a Bible believing Church; and keep opening the Bible. ~ Turn its crank and it will be like music to your ears; and proof will leap out of it like a Jack in the Box. Don’t be found remaining in a stubborn refusal to believe…

Acts 1:3 KJV; To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

My point here is, that the Bible without Theology is Solo Scriptura; not Sola Scriptura...

Without Systematic Theology, you get Oneness Pentecostalism instead of Monotheistic Trinitarianism. Why not Modalism? When it's up to you, you can have whatever personal interpretation you want. But the Bible says that it is Good for Doctrine, so we should expect to have Theology. If the Bible is the Box, Theology is the Jack springing out with Convincing Proofs...

Presuppositional Apologetics...

 

[brightfame52]

Wow, this is one of the least Hyper things you've ever said!

Lol okay, but remember its only the saved, new man, that cooperates in conversion, because its being caused. Ezk 36:26-27

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

So its the new saved man and not a lost man who is converted

 

[ReverendRV]

Lol okay, but remember its only the saved, new man, that cooperates in conversion, because its being caused. Ezk 36:26-27

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

So its the new saved man and not a lost man who is converted

I'll start cutting you some slack...

 

[Josheb]

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. 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 point is that human volition possesses the attribute of causality; causality is an inherent quality or feature of human volition.

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).

Could you not similarly ask if causality is not an attribute of just about any effect-become-cause?

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.

But there's no implication that just because it does cause, and is itself a 'second cause', and is itself, unlike most other causes, a willed cause, that it is not also an effect of many other causes, and that, in EVERY particular.

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!

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.