Which Doctrines are Monergistic and which are not?

[Bruiser]

The illustration was corrected by me, so what is your question now? The illustration actually shows hard determinism but that is not the position of Reformed concurrence. Or monergism.

No question except the OP'S Question. Can you think of any Doctrine that's not Monergistic?

 

[JesusFan]

No question except the OP'S Question. Can you think of any Doctrine that's not Monergistic?

Think Sanctification might be a big one that would have conflicting views

 

[Bruiser]

Think Sanctification might be a big one that would have conflicting views

Yes. I point out RC Sproul's view that Sanctification is Synergistic...

So my Point is; when pressed, even Monergists believe in Synergism...

 

[Carbon]

Think Sanctification might be a big one that would have conflicting views

Very true

 

[Carbon]

Yes. I point out RC Sproul's view that Sanctification is Synergistic...

So my Point is, even Monergists believe in Synergism...

I think everyone monergistic or not believe in synergism in some aspect. Just not when it comes to salvation.

 

[Arial]

No question except the OP'S Question. Can you think of any Doctrine that's not Monergistic?

No. Can you?

 

[Bruiser]

I think everyone monergistic or not believe in synergism in some aspect. Just not when it comes to salvation.

Amen Brother. I think I'm done

 

[Carbon]

Amen Brother. I think I'm done

But we just got started

 

[Bruiser]

But we just got started

I mean, I think I've gotten out of this what I wanted. I don't mean I'll quit posting. I mean the Belle of the Ball is ready to sit a dance or two out...

It seems that others like Freddy and Jesusfan may want to dance...

 

[Arial]

Yes. I point out RC Sproul's view that Sanctification is Synergistic...

So my Point is; when pressed, even Monergists believe in Synergism...

Sproul is very careful to qualify that view and distinguish it from the A'ist or semi-Pelagianism. He holds real human activity to absolute dependence.

“Sanctification is a cooperative process. We are called to work, but our working is always dependent upon the prior working of God in us.” R.C. Sproul

 

[Bruiser]

Sproul is very careful to qualify that view and distinguish it from the A'ist or semi-Pelagianism. He holds real human activity to absolute dependence.

“Sanctification is a cooperative process. We are called to work, but our working is always dependent upon the prior working of God in us.” R.C. Sproul

Would you agree the Prior Working is something like a Parent teaching her child to drive; but her child eventually drives on his own; he's then Synergisticly participating in his Sanctification? There's no room for Synergism anywhere? Carbon agreed there's room for some somewhere...

 

[Bruiser]

Human Agency...

Human Agency isn't Monergistic. Agency involves the Agent's autonomous volition...

 

[Bruiser]

A final thought...

Would you suppose that "All things" regarding the WCF's, "in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree."; includes God's Providence, the Hypostatic Union, Sanctification, Human Agency, etc?

 

[atpollard]

Seems to me God created creatures and gave them rules and gave them the inability to obey the rules (maybe exception of Adam and Eve).

Not according to Romans 1. God gave them nothing but "enough rope to hang themselves" ...

• 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [People, not God, did it].
• 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened.
  • "They knew" and they "did not honor" ... a choice of man, not an action of God.
  • "They became" ... not God made them.
  • "their hears were" ... not God darkened their hearts.
• 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [Human self agency as the root cause.]
• 24 Therefore God gave them up ... 26 For this reason God gave them over ... 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up ... [God surrendered man to the freedom to follow his heart. Man chose, God merely allowed.]

 

[atpollard]

Can you think of any Doctrine which isn't Monergistic?

Technically, Wesleyan Arminianism accepts "Total Depravity" and believes that "prevenient grace" allows men just enough freedom to choose to accept or reject the Gospel (synergetically) when they hear it.

So (T) in Tulip is not just for Monergists. Monergists just have a different solution to the problem than Synergists.

 

[fastfredy0]

Concurrence on the other hand says causes are on different levels (primary vs secondary), God is not a partial contributor but the ground of the whole act. The creature is a true, immediate cause, not a co-equal partner.

I don't see how this is different that hard determinism.

I'm a Calvinist at heart, but I want to get it all right ..

Well then, you have to be God and then you'll be able to point out mistakes Calvinist's make.

 

[fastfredy0]

• 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [People, not God, did it].
• 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened.
  • "They knew" and they "did not honor" ... a choice of man, not an action of God.
  • "They became" ... not God made them.
  • "their hears were" ... not God darkened their hearts.
• 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [Human self agency as the root cause.]
• 24 Therefore God gave them up ... 26 For this reason God gave them over ... 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up ... [God surrendered man to the freedom to follow his heart. Man chose, God merely allowed.]

I see this as second causes. I see everything we do as secondary causes. For instance, I never chose to have a 'sin nature', but my sin nature has much to do with controlling what I do.

God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be. He cannot “look into the future”, so to speak, to find out what will happen for that would be knowledge acquired from learning; God is immutable and omniscient and therefore cannot learn. Furthermore, from nothing nothing comes and since before creation nothing existed, all knowledge must come from God, and the source of His knowledge is His wisdom and ability to cause all things. If God's knowledge of his creatures were derived from the creatures by the impression of anything upon him, as there is upon us, he could not know from eternity, because from eternity there was no actual existence of anything but himself; and therefore there could not be any images shot out from anything, because there was not anything in being but God. For whatsoever is a cause of knowledge, doth precede the knowledge it causes, either in order of time, or order of nature: temporal things, therefore, cannot be the cause of that knowledge which is eternal. Stephen Charnock … thus, God could not know what He would permit, which is a tenet of compatibilism.


Proverbs 16:14 "All things hath the Lord wrought for their destined purpose; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

 

[atpollard]

I see this as second causes. I see everything we do as secondary causes. For instance, I never chose to have a 'sin nature', but my sin nature has much to do with controlling what I do.

Perhaps, but God did not actively create in you your sin nature. Can you find a scripture that claims God actively created evil vs passively "allowing" evil to occur? Those verses claim God "gave them over to". Who are we to change God's word to "God compelled men to do evil" without any evidence but our own thoughts on the subject?

Remember God's questions to Job.

 

[Bruiser]

Technically, Wesleyan Arminianism accepts "Total Depravity" and believes that "prevenient grace" allows men just enough freedom to choose to accept or reject the Gospel (synergetically) when they hear it.

So (T) in Tulip is not just for Monergists. Monergists just have a different solution to the problem than Synergists.

You hit on something there. We could have as easily asked for Baptist Doctrine or Presbyterian Doctrine; like Padeo Baptism or Creedo Baptism. Are they strictly Monergistic or not? I'm sure folks will say Creedo Baptism couldn't strictly be Monergistic, since it involves the Believer's Testimony. Would Circumcision or Infant Baptism be Monergistic? I don't think so...

 

[atpollard]

You hit on something there. We could have as easily asked for Baptist Doctrine or Presbyterian Doctrine; like Padeo Baptism or Creedo Baptism. Are they strictly Monergistic or not? I'm sure folks will say Creedo Baptism couldn't strictly be Monergistic, since it involves the Believer's Testimony. Would Circumcision or Infant Baptism be Monergistic? I don't think so...

Monergism and Synergism refers to "sotieriology" (how God saves), so when you start to talk about things like "baptism" you are getting into ORDINANCES (done because God said so) vs SACRAMENT (done because they contain power and are the actual MEANS that God uses). Protestants generally fall on the side of Ordinances and Catholics fall on the side of Sacraments.

Sotieriology debates/discussions typically center on "Grace" vs "Works" and TULIP (in some form).

If you really want to talk about Baptism, then the only important question is this:

"CAN GOD SAVE WITHOUT BAPTISM?"

• If God can save without baptism (like the thief on the cross), then it is "monergistic" ... God does not NEED it to save.