Saint Moses the Black

Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget


Saint John the Theologian

Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian


Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Calvinism, Monergy, and Synergy

This is one of the Calvinistic understandings of "monergy & Synergy" in regards to how they relate to there system of thought. I am only posting this on my blog because I meet different kinds of Calvinists who may get upset with me when I try to explain the mainstream Calvinistic view in this regard.

Now I can just cut and paste it whereever I go.

This is from the comment section of one of Triablog's posts.

The blog

GeneMBridges said:

Quoting Jnorm
"Do you believe
Sanctification is synergistic?

If so then how can you believe the means
is "unconditionaly" pre-ordained?

I a only asking because the
implications of such a view doesn't leave room for synergy.

I may be
wrong, but how can one resist something that's "unconditional"?"

affirm that sanctification is cooperative, not "synergistic" in, for example,
the Arminian sense.
To the extent that salvation has a conditional aspect,
God still ensures the satisfaction of those conditions in the lives of the
Conditionality does not entail uncertainty - and this presupposition
(that conditionality must entail uncertainty) seems to underwrite your
objections. Where is the supporting argument? We're going to get back to LFW, so
where's the exegetical argument for LFW?

"Monergism" refers to
regeneration. Regeneration is irresistible, that is, conversion inevitably and
infallibly results. Sanctification is cooperative, but the results are ensured
insofar that the elect will all persevere to the end
, and the elect will be
conformed to Christ's image, but they will not all persevere to end at the same
level of maturity.

3/03/2008 3:22 PM
Paul Manata said:

Quoting JNORM:
"So why do you deny [1] & [2]?"

I told
you why in my post.

I said: "The use of the term 'automatic response' is
loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who
'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back.
My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings
of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that

JNORM responded: "Why would you deny this?"

that's not my position. I have a tendency to deny those premises I don't hold me weird.

JNORM said: "If the means is also unconditional then
how can you see it differently?

Because (i) the Bible affirms
determinism and moral responsibility and the reality of choices and (ii)
because, philosophically, I am a semi-compatibilist and we have loads and loads
of books on the subject which answer and explain these very purile and
sophomoric assumptions you have about us.

JNORM asked: "Also I would
like to ask you a question. Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?

Gene explained it, though some Calvinists have used the term 'syngerism'
in explaining this view (Cf. Sproul, and there's others). I stand in that line.
I do not believe that we 'let go and let God,' (as I explained in my first post
to Ben, had you read that one). I believe we are active in our sanctification.
Not like our regeneration. I must make use of the means of grace, I must put to
death sin, etc. I don't just live like hell and expect to make it to heaven.
But, if I do not cooperate in my sanctification I do not lose my salvation or
justification or regeneration. I prove I was never saved in the first place.

This would be a fruit-to-root inference. I would show I was, per Heb. 6, part of
the soil that NEVER produced fruit.

Btw, let me add that you never
bothered to respond to my post above, or most of my arguments.

This will save me alot of time with pointless arguments. This will also make it easier in getting to the meat of the issue.



Related Posts with Thumbnails