Which Doctrines are Monergistic and which are not?

[Carbon]

For sure...

Since you agree Synergistic Sprinkles on a Monergistic Cupcake makes the Cupcake Synergism, wouldn't Faith and Perseverance be sprinkles?

As I said they don’t mix. I never said they did. I agree with @Arial ’s post

 

[Carbon]

I could certainly be wrong (it would hardly be a first) but I could make an argument that we are called to active participation in our "sanctification" making it less than 100% monergistic (of God). Is God responsible for the sin that John calls us to repent of if we do happen to fail to avoid all sin? Working out our salvation with fear and trembling and walking in the works that God has prepared seem to suggest an active cooperation on our part (we "work" and "walk") even as God empowers us to do so ("to will and to do according to His good pleasure" and "which he has prepared in advance").

You may be correct brother. Being wrong with me isn’t a first either.

I’d love to comment why I believe as I do though. I love critics it helps me to learn.

 

[Bruiser]

As I said they don’t mix. I never said they did. I agree with @Arial ’s post

Okay...

 

[makesends]

I'm Calvinist y'all, I swear! A Monergist for sure. But I see fewer Doctrines as Monergistic than the average 5-Point Calvinist does...

Leaving alone Calvinism or Reformed Doctrine, though both have very good statements, the question is what is monergism, vs what is synergism.

If by synergism is meant that God's work is improved on or completed by man's actions, to include acts of man's will; and if by monergism is meant that God does the whole thing, by USE OF (among all other things) the actions and will of moral agents, then no, there are no true valid synergistic doctrines, except perhaps some statements synergisms proponents make that can be taken both ways.

So, if, for example, both Monergists and Synergists say that God is omnipotent, the statement is true, as far as it goes; but both are not agreed, except in the foggiest of intentions. Most statements of Scripture are admitted by both the Reformed and the Arminian, but obviously they are used very differently.

Being a monergist, not to mention a full determinist and a proponent of meticulous causation via willed first cause, I can't see man's actions as anything but a result of what God wills [both from the beginning and as He works immanently], and our wills as mere tools, and our choices as real ONLY BECAUSE God has established them. That is, HIS work includes and establishes our wills and choices, without exception.

That we can't fit all that into our heads does not mean it is unreasonable, nor that it violates any scripture. He is that much above us.

 

[makesends]

I could certainly be wrong (it would hardly be a first) but I could make an argument that we are called to active participation in our "sanctification" making it less than 100% monergistic (of God). Is God responsible for the sin that John calls us to repent of if we do happen to fail to avoid all sin? Working out our salvation with fear and trembling and walking in the works that God has prepared seem to suggest an active cooperation on our part (we "work" and "walk") even as God empowers us to do so ("to will and to do according to His good pleasure" and "which he has prepared in advance").

The problem I have with that POV is the same as when I might hear the same thing from an Arminian or worse. Our active participation is not what I call synergism, if our active 'participation' is GOD doing it in us. "For it is God who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure."

If our active 'cooperation' is added to His work, as to increase or complete it, we've all got a real problem, because we cannot increase or complete what he has determined from the beginning.

Several people here have called me on it, but I still insist: Our words throw us around, even (maybe specially) when God uses them.

 

[Bruiser]

Leaving alone Calvinism or Reformed Doctrine, though both have very good statements, the question is what is monergism, vs what is synergism.

If by synergism is meant that God's work is improved on or completed by man's actions, to include acts of man's will; and if by monergism is meant that God does the whole thing, by USE OF (among all other things) the actions and will of moral agents, then no, there are no true valid synergistic doctrines, except perhaps some statements synergisms proponents make that can be taken both ways.

So, if, for example, both Monergists and Synergists say that God is omnipotent, the statement is true, as far as it goes; but both are not agreed, except in the foggiest of intentions. Most statements of Scripture are admitted by both the Reformed and the Arminian, but obviously they are used very differently.

Being a monergist, not to mention a full determinist and a proponent of meticulous causation via willed first cause, I can't see man's actions as anything but a result of what God wills [both from the beginning and as He works immanently], and our wills as mere tools, and our choices as real ONLY BECAUSE God has established them. That is, HIS work includes and establishes our wills and choices, without exception.

That we can't fit all that into our heads does not mean it is unreasonable, nor that it violates any scripture. He is that much above us.

Could you accept the Meaning of the Agents involved in an Act, to be Monergistic or Synergistic? IE Joseph's Brothers selling him into Slavery? One Agent Meant the Act for Good, but the other Agents involved Meant it for Evil. It never enters God's Mind to Cause people to Sin. Isn't the human Meaning solely Synergistic?

 

[makesends]

Could you accept the Meaning of the Agents involved in an Act, to be Monergistic or Synergistic? IE Joseph's Brothers selling him into Slavery? One Agent Meant the Act for Good, but the other Agents involved Meant it for Evil. It never enters God's Mind to Cause people to Sin. Isn't the human Meaning Synergistic?

Where do you read scripture to say it never enters God's Mind to Cause people to Sin? That humans intend their acts as synergistic does not make it so. That sin is not, on God's part, a result of his failure to account for the perverse will of his particular creation, does not imply free will on their part.

Jeremiah 19:5 is not saying that it never entered God's mind that they should sacrifice their children to Baal, but that it never entered His mind to command such a thing. Read it again. Second, if you insist on reading it literally as you might wish, then also take the figure of speech, "enter my mind", literally. Nothing enters God's mind. Divine Simplicity, Aseity, Impassivity. He is not, "The 'God' who learns."

But we're not talking about sin, here. Monergism vs Synergism is a reference to Regeneration, specifically, and can be applied in some way to all good --that is, I consider not just justification and regeneration to be monergistic (in its full use --that is, that God doesn't ask permission nor even consult the elect when he regenerates them --in fact, he might not even inform them!), but also the long process of sanctification is monergistically done--the only good we do is God doing it in us. The only good in us is God's work. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it?

 

[Carbon]

atpollard said:
I could certainly be wrong (it would hardly be a first) but I could make an argument that we are called to active participation in our "sanctification" making it less than 100% monergistic (of God). Is God responsible for the sin that John calls us to repent of if we do happen to fail to avoid all sin? Working out our salvation with fear and trembling and walking in the works that God has prepared seem to suggest an active cooperation on our part (we "work" and "walk") even as God empowers us to do so ("to will and to do according to His good pleasure" and "which he has prepared in advance").

The problem I have with that POV is the same as when I might hear the same thing from an Arminian or worse. Our active participation is not what I call synergism, if our active 'participation' is GOD doing it in us. "For it is God who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure."

If our active 'cooperation' is added to His work, as to increase or complete it, we've all got a real problem, because we cannot increase or complete what he has determined from the beginning.

Several people here have called me on it, but I still insist: Our words throw us around, even (maybe specially) when God uses them.

This is a very interesting subject, but I just got home from bible study and have to get up tomorrow morning at 4:30, so I need

But looking forward to replying tomorrow after work.

 

[Carbon]

atpollard said:
I could certainly be wrong (it would hardly be a first) but I could make an argument that we are called to active participation in our "sanctification" making it less than 100% monergistic (of God).

I'm interested in seeing that argument, if you care to make it.

Is God responsible for the sin that John calls us to repent of if we do happen to fail to avoid all sin?

Huh?

Working out our salvation with fear and trembling and walking in the works that God has prepared seem to suggest an active cooperation on our part (we "work" and "walk") even as God empowers us to do so ("to will and to do according to His good pleasure" and "which he has prepared in advance").

Now I suppose one could say that, but with really no argument, at least not with any explicit support. But wouldn't you agree that Paul is pointing out the importance of taking your calling and election seriously and continuing to run the race with steadiness? Consider Hebrews 6. I think there should be a fear of God.

And I think it would test our genuineness?
After all, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Phil 2:13

Since God has done the work, we should take it seriously, and fear God.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us. 1 John 2:19.


I'm really interested in your thoughts.

The problem I have with that POV is the same as when I might hear the same thing from an Arminian or worse. Our active participation is not what I call synergism, if our active 'participation' is GOD doing it in us. "For it is God who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure."

Agreed

If our active 'cooperation' is added to His work, as to increase or complete it, we've all got a real problem, because we cannot increase or complete what he has determined from the beginning.

True that. Plus, it would no longer be monergism.

Several people here have called me on it, but I still insist: Our words throw us around, even (maybe specially) when God uses them.

 

[atpollard]

I'm interested in seeing that argument, if you care to make it.

[Shrug] Ok, here is AN ARGUMENT …

From Theopedia (defining terms):

• Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. The word synergy or synergism comes from two Greek words, erg meaning to work and syn meaning together, hence synergism is a "working together."
• Sanctification: “In Christianity, the term can be used to refer to objects which are set apart for special purposes, but the most common use within Christian theology is in reference to the change brought about by God in a believer, begun at the point of salvation or justification and continuing throughout the life of the believer. Many forms of Christianity believe that this process will only be completed in Heaven when believers are also glorified, but some believe that complete holiness is possible in this life.”

I posit, for this discussion, that sanctification is a synergistic process. The change in the life of a believer between “justification” (100% of God) and “glorification” (100% of God) is a “work” (erg) done “together” (syn).

I offer into evidence the following for your consideration (addressing the question “Huh?”) …

1 John 1:5-10 [NLT]

5 This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. 6 So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. 7 But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. ​

8 If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. 9 But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.​

1 John 2:1-2 [NLT]

1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.​

Note the dichotomy.

• v6: Living in darkness = lying about fellowship with God
• v7: Living in light = Jesus cleanses us from all sin
• (How WE are living matters, does it not?)

• v8: Claim no sin = fooling ourselves
• v9: Confess sin = he will forgive
• (Another dance of our actions and God’s actions.)

• v1: my dear children = POST SALVATION (in case there was any doubt about the audience)

• v1: writing so that you will not sin
• v1: but if anyone does sin
• (Is God 100% monergistically responsible for which children sin and which children do not sin post salvation? How does that work without falling into the “robot” trap of radical hard determinism or making God the author of sin? … No, I see human agency post salvation at work in determining when a child “does not sin” and when a child “does sin” and turns to his “advocate”.)

Thus, as requested, I offer evidence of a “work” done “together” post salvation and pre glorification. A dance between Father and children.

As I stated: “I could make an argument that we are called to active participation in our ‘sanctification’ making it less than 100% monergistic (of God). Is God responsible for the sin that John calls us to repent of if we do happen to fail to avoid all sin?”

YMMV.

 

[Bruiser]

[Shrug] Ok, here is AN ARGUMENT …

From Theopedia (defining terms):

• Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. The word synergy or synergism comes from two Greek words, erg meaning to work and syn meaning together, hence synergism is a "working together."
• Sanctification: “In Christianity, the term can be used to refer to objects which are set apart for special purposes, but the most common use within Christian theology is in reference to the change brought about by God in a believer, begun at the point of salvation or justification and continuing throughout the life of the believer. Many forms of Christianity believe that this process will only be completed in Heaven when believers are also glorified, but some believe that complete holiness is possible in this life.”

I posit, for this discussion, that sanctification is a synergistic process. The change in the life of a believer between “justification” (100% of God) and “glorification” (100% of God) is a “work” (erg) done “together” (syn).

I offer into evidence the following for your consideration (addressing the question “Huh?”) …

1 John 1:5-10 [NLT]

5 This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. 6 So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. 7 But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. ​

8 If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. 9 But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.​

1 John 2:1-2 [NLT]

1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.​

Note the dichotomy.

• v6: Living in darkness = lying about fellowship with God
• v7: Living in light = Jesus cleanses us from all sin
• (How WE are living matters, does it not?)

• v8: Claim no sin = fooling ourselves
• v9: Confess sin = he will forgive
• (Another dance of our actions and God’s actions.)

• v1: my dear children = POST SALVATION (in case there was any doubt about the audience)

• v1: writing so that you will not sin
• v1: but if anyone does sin
• (Is God 100% monergistically responsible for which children sin and which children do not sin post salvation? How does that work without falling into the “robot” trap of radical hard determinism or making God the author of sin? … No, I see human agency post salvation at work in determining when a child “does not sin” and when a child “does sin” and turns to his “advocate”.)

Thus, as requested, I offer evidence of a “work” done “together” post salvation and pre glorification. A dance between Father and children.

As I stated: “I could make an argument that we are called to active participation in our ‘sanctification’ making it less than 100% monergistic (of God). Is God responsible for the sin that John calls us to repent of if we do happen to fail to avoid all sin?”

YMMV.

Of course I like this...

It's why Sproul said Sanctification is Synergistic. If it's not, Sproul meant Sanctification is Synergistic IN SOME SENSE. Would you think the Perseverance of the Saints functions as you describe Sanctification?

 

[makesends]

Of course I like this...

It's why Sproul said Sanctification is Synergistic. If it's not, Sproul meant Sanctification is Synergistic IN SOME SENSE. Would you think the Perseverance of the Saints functions as you describe Sanctification?

There's no argument that in Sanctification, one does participate. "Cooperate", even, as long as the sense is duty, or even, privilege, such as is our participation in His sufferings. Obedience is indeed necessary, and if we are not obedient, we are not 'in Christ'.

However, there are two things on which we must insist-- one, that our work does not qualify nor increase God's work, nor his decree, in any way-- which is related to the second, that even what we do in such participation or cooperation is also the work of God, done by him for his purposes.

As I put it, "We do so because it is so". As in WCF 3.1, what we choose to do is ESTABLISHED by God. Not because we choose, but because he ordained it.

 

[fastfredy0]

Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. The word synergy or synergism comes from two Greek words, erg meaning to work and syn meaning together, hence synergism is a "working together."

So, I am a carpenter with a hammer and my task is to drive a nail into a board. Would this task fall under the definition of Synergism or monergism?

 

[Bruiser]

There's no argument that in Sanctification, one does participate. "Cooperate", even, as long as the sense is duty, or even, privilege, such as is our participation in His sufferings. Obedience is indeed necessary, and if we are not obedient, we are not 'in Christ'.

However, there are two things on which we must insist-- one, that our work does not qualify nor increase God's work, nor his decree, in any way-- which is related to the second, that even what we do in such participation or cooperation is also the work of God, done by him for his purposes.

As I put it, "We do so because it is so". As in WCF 3.1, what we choose to do is ESTABLISHED by God. Not because we choose, but because he ordained it.

Agreed again. I have comments but I'll keep them to myself; and see how it goes with y'all...

 

[makesends]

So, I am a carpenter with a hammer and my task is to drive a nail into a board. Would this task fall under the definition of Synergism or monergism?

For me, the problem there isn't the black and white distinction some make. That is, both regeneration and sanctification are monergistic but of different uses --the one being done by God alone, without our permission or even our consultation, and the other done with our definite choosing and work. The reason I balk at "synergism" is not because we do not work, but that our work is not done as an addition to God's work; rather, our work is God's work in us.

Your hammer and nail question could even be translated to whether the unbeliever is capable of synergism. In one sense, no, he is not, since all things come about by God's work, and our decisions, believer and unbeliever alike, are part of what God uses for accomplishing that work. But 'synergist' is not really a reference to what he does or what happens in life, but what he intends or believes about it.

That any or all of us believe our work, choices, thoughts, etc to be self-generated does not make them so. But the debate is about believers. The hammer and nail question is unrelated, unless you are talking about a believer-- in which case if his nailing is sin, he drives his nail synergistically--even if he blames God for his decisions and the nail passing through the 12/2 Romex cable.

Quite the opposite for driving the nail in obedience and fellowship in Christ. It is all monergistic satisfaction and joy, when the nail punctures the water pipe and you don't see the wet drywall till a couple of days later!

 

[Bruiser]

For me, the problem there isn't the black and white distinction some make. That is, both regeneration and sanctification are monergistic but of different uses --the one being done by God alone, without our permission or even our consultation, and the other done with our definite choosing and work. The reason I balk at "synergism" is not because we do not work, but that our work is not done as an addition to God's work; rather, our work is God's work in us.

Your hammer and nail question could even be translated to whether the unbeliever is capable of synergism. In one sense, no, he is not, since all things come about by God's work, and our decisions, believer and unbeliever alike, are part of what God uses for accomplishing that work. But 'synergist' is not really a reference to what he does or what happens in life, but what he intends or believes about it.

That any or all of us believe our work, choices, thoughts, etc to be self-generated does not make them so. But the debate is about believers. The hammer and nail question is unrelated, unless you are talking about a believer-- in which case if his nailing is sin, he drives his nail synergistically--even if he blames God for his decisions and the nail passing through the 12/2 Romex cable.

Quite the opposite for driving the nail in obedience and fellowship in Christ. It is all monergistic satisfaction and joy, when the nail punctures the water pipe and you don't see the wet drywall till a couple of days later!

I would add, the question is biased, because people aren't Nails...

 

[fastfredy0]

the one [regeneration] being done by God alone, without our permission or even our consultation, and the other [sanctification] done with our definite choosing and work.

.... but who/what causes us to choose to work/sanctification? Seems the initial cause of is the monergistic regeneration. I would say we choose to work with God because He has changed our desires so I'd said our mutual work with God is monergistic. Just as the carpenter and hammer do work together, I define that as monergistic as the carpenter determines everything the hammer does. But, maybe some define the carpenter/hammer illustration as being synergistic.

But 'synergist' is not really a reference to what he does or what happens in life, but what he intends or believes about it.

... but who/what determines one's intentions/desires? Did I choose my desires and if so, why does everyone choose the desire to have a sin nature?

The hammer and nail question is unrelated, unless you are talking about a believer-- in which case if his nailing is sin, he drives his nail synergistically--even if he blames God for his decisions and the nail passing through the 12/2 Romex cable.

My hammer/nail can be applied to a believer in which case the carpenter decides to drive the nail ..... or the hammer/nail can be applied to a non-believer in which case the carpenter decides to NOT drive the nail.

So, you're saying Christians have "free will" if it comes to doing something sinful?
Was David's decision to disobey God and do a census due to David's free will?
2 Samuel 24:1 The Lord “incited” David to take a census of the people, but afterward David recognized this as sin, saying, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (2 Samuel 24:10), and God sent punishment on the land because of this sin (2 Samuel 24:12-17). However, it is clear that “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel” (2 Samuel 24:1), so God’s inciting of David to sin was a means by which he brought about punishment on the people of Israel. Moreover, the means by which God incited David is made clear in 1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” The Bible shows here that God, in order to bring about His purposes, worked through Satan to incite David to sin, but Scripture regards David as being responsible for that sin.

 

[fastfredy0]

I would add, the question is biased, because people aren't Nails...

Well, the question was given to try to get a better idea of the definition of synergism.

Taking it further .... the old and new testament refer to God and man as the Potter and clay. Are these scriptures invalid because man is not clay? Seems like Potter/clay isn't much different than Carpenter/nail.

Bedtime

 

[Bruiser]

Well, the question was given to try to get a better idea of the definition of synergism.

Taking it further .... the old and new testament refer to God and man as the Potter and clay. Are these scriptures invalid because man is not clay? Seems like Potter/clay isn't much different than Carpenter/nail.

Bedtime

You got me...

You got me good...

 

[atpollard]

Of course I like this...

It's why Sproul said Sanctification is Synergistic. If it's not, Sproul meant Sanctification is Synergistic IN SOME SENSE. Would you think the Perseverance of the Saints functions as you describe Sanctification?

I am not sure that I am 100% convinced that “sanctification” is synergistic. I merely entertain that it is a possibility that can be supported from certain Scriptures.

So don’t force me to think about “perseverance”, too.