Monergism vs Synergism

[godrulz]

A proper understanding of predestination, sovereignty, free will does remove mystery and antinomy. The confusion comes when we have wrong views on these concepts.

"TULIP is deductive, problematic, and not biblical. Monergism-monothetism-determinism ultimately makes God arbitrary and responsible for evil."

Indeed. Would you like help in understanding the correct view of monergism?

I agree that God alone regenerates, but this is not something settled by decree unconditionally and not apart from a response by man.

There are probably a variety of monergistic explanations, so you are welcome to give your opinion for consideration. I think monergists misunderstand and misrepresent synergists. Would you agree with many Reformed types that sanctification is synergistic (verses can be found for a Godward and manward emphasis)?

[Xan]

A proper understanding of predestination, sovereignty, free will does remove mystery and antinomy. The confusion comes when we have wrong views on these concepts.

"TULIP is deductive, problematic, and not biblical. Monergism-monothetism-determinism ultimately makes God arbitrary and responsible for evil."

Indeed. Would you like help in understanding the correct view of monergism?

I agree that God alone regenerates, but this is not something settled by decree unconditionally and not apart from a response by man.

There are probably a variety of monergistic explanations, so you are welcome to give your opinion for consideration. I think monergists misunderstand and misrepresent synergists. Would you agree with many Reformed types that sanctification is synergistic (verses can be found for a Godward and manward emphasis)?

I'm responding to the confusion of the view that monergism ultimately makes God responsible for evil. It's difficult for me to address that directly because I'm unsure of how it does. However, I will show through scripture that man is completely unregenerate and will always choose to reject God if not for His election.

Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

In that passage, Paul is building an arguement to show how God has made Himself revealed to all, but they had rejected Him.

Romans 3:10 "as it is written,

"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,

THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;

THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,

THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

13"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,

WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"

"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";

14"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";

15"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,

16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,

17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."

18"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

This clearly says no one seeks after God. So, even with God revealing Himself to man, there is still no one who accepts God and follows after His righteousness without the Holy Spirit doing the work in us. So, please explain how this shows God is responsible for evil.

[godrulz]

God alone initiates and provides salvation. He convinces and convicts with the Spirit and Word, but man is responsible to receive or reject truth. This is why we are culpable and God is not arbitrary in His election (God would be similar to Satan if Satan wants all men damned and God wants some men damned, supposedly for his glory?). Election is corporate, not individual. Those who believe, become part of the corporate elect. Those who do not believe perish for rejecting God's grace.

Rom. 1-3 shows that all men are condemned because they are sinners, not because God passed them over by decree before they were born.

TULIP and monergism is one issue.

The problem of evil (theodicy) is more general in relation to determinism, omnicausality, etc. Only a free will theistic, non-deterministic view does not impugn God's character and ways.

[Xan]

God alone initiates and provides salvation. He convinces and convicts with the Spirit and Word, but man is responsible to receive or reject truth. This is why we are culpable and God is not arbitrary in His election (God would be similar to Satan if Satan wants all men damned and God wants some men damned, supposedly for his glory?). Election is corporate, not individual. Those who believe, become part of the corporate elect. Those who do not believe perish for rejecting God's grace.

Rom. 1-3 shows that all men are condemned because they are sinners, not because God passed them over by decree before they were born.

TULIP and monergism is one issue.

The problem of evil (theodicy) is more general in relation to determinism, omnicausality, etc. Only a free will theistic, non-deterministic view does not impugn God's character and ways.

Reformers do not believe men are condemned because God passed over them. We believe men are condemned because of sin. My point in this is based on what you had said about confusion and lack of understanding. What you have stated shows that you do not understand monergism, and one does not have to accept a belief to at least accept understanding of it. Even before I accepted the Reformed beliefs of the Bible, I understood it and attempted to explain it to those who did not understand. I will not try to convince anyone of this belief, but I also will try to explain misconceptions people have.

[godrulz]

Do you believe in unconditional election? If so, you also believe in unconditional reprobation (i.e. double predestination).

Has any Calvinist solved their mystery as to why God saves some, but damns others that He could save if He wanted to? How is this not inconsistent with love that is impartial, not arbitrary? The cross is efficacious for all who believe. Some do not believe because they love darkness more than light. Why blame a supposed unconditional decree from God instead of rebellion of man (we are all sinners, so why save one family member, but not another; why not universalism and save all if it is monergistic)?

Is there much difference in your view between God who wants to damn some people and Satan who wants to damn all people?

Lk. 19:10; I Tim. 2:4 (don't add the word 'kinds'...it is not there); 2 Peter 3:9; Jn. 3:16 (don't add 'elite elect'...it is not in the Greek). Is your view really biblical?

Perhaps you are a soft, compatibilistic determinist, not much better than a hard determinist.

[Xan]

Do you believe in unconditional election? If so, you also believe in unconditional reprobation (i.e. double predestination).

Has any Calvinist solved their mystery as to why God saves some, but damns others that He could save if He wanted to? How is this not inconsistent with love that is impartial, not arbitrary? The cross is efficacious for all who believe. Some do not believe because they love darkness more than light. Why blame a supposed unconditional decree from God instead of rebellion of man (we are all sinners, so why save one family member, but not another; why not universalism and save all if it is monergistic)?

Is there much difference in your view between God who wants to damn some people and Satan who wants to damn all people?

Lk. 19:10; I Tim. 2:4 (don't add the word 'kinds'...it is not there); 2 Peter 3:9; Jn. 3:16 (don't add 'elite elect'...it is not in the Greek). Is your view really biblical?

Perhaps you are a soft, compatibilistic determinist, not much better than a hard determinist.

Perhaps you don't want to learn and only want to debate. I have quoted what you have said regarding misunderstandings and confusions and have clearly stated I would like to clear up misunderstandings about the Reformed beliefs. I never said anything about wanting a debate. When I feel I am ready for a debate, I will have a soapbox with my old friend Blindseeker. If you want to clear up misconceptions about Calvinism, I will be happy to share what I know, but I am not interested in debating.

[godrulz]

I am sorry. I thought this was a forum so we would not uncritically accept ideas untested.

One problem is that there are a variety of Calvinistic views (hyper, hypo, etc.). Other Calvinists are more moderate and avoid the controversial areas. I appreciate Sproul, Packer, Piper, Spurgeon, etc., but their practice and beliefs are not always what Calvin himself taught.

It is an important issue with practical implications. The more important issue is our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and the proclamation of His gospel to the lost (though the impetus is reduced in your view).

God bless as you seek to know Him and make Him Known.

William

[Xan]

I am sorry. I thought this was a forum so we would not uncritically accept ideas untested.

It is, and by that statement it shows I have still been delinquent with what I was trying to say. I never asked you to accept my views. I thought I had laid out my intent.