Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 1

Topic tags
I have posted a new article to my blog with the above title, and the subtitle http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/monergism-vs-synergism-part-1… Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism .

I begin the article:
In 1914, B.B. Warfield gave a series of lectures at Princeton. The lectures were later compiled into a book; The Plan of Salvation. In the section titled Autosoterism, Warfield states:
There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism.
These two doctrines of salvation are known as Monergism and Synergism.
Comments are welcome here or http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/monergism-vs-synergism-part-1… there

Discussion

[Jack Hampton]…the gospel which brings life
As a Monergist I affirm this statement. The Holy Spirit, by MEANS of the proclaimed Gospel, grants life to spiritually dead individuals.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

…you would have read the following
In this article, I will attempt to define and illustrate each view; in a subsequent article, I will look at the Apostle John’s affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the topic; in a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.
Notice the highlighted phrase. There is nothing in there about Eph., Col., or Acts.

Furthermore, if you had read my previous article on the issue of Regeneration and Faith, which I link to in another thread, and pointed you to in a post on still another thread, you would not be insisting that I believe something which I don’t believe.

So when you have read what I have actually written on the subject, and thus know what it is that I actually affirm, then we can have a discussion about the issue.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

John,

I read your article in full and like the earlier one concerning your Lazarus theory of regeneration before faith, this one had many citations/quotes, hence its continuity was strained quite a bit. It may serve you better, as a writer, to formulate much of your quoted material with your own thoughts and style, thereby making for greater continuity and readability.

But to the article, I do disagree with and reject the premise upon which it is based as well as the definitions it uses. I do not believe that there is only one of two possibilities regarding our identifying and defining the elements and agents involved in the process of one believing the gospel and being regenerated. And I particularly do so with regard to your article where you state in quoting Hendryx:
Synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God’s action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation.
While some might assert that faith is autonomous and independent of God’s action of grace, there are others that, while rejecting this view also reject your narrow definition of monergism, while defining faith as an action of God’s grace. This is outside of your consideration.

And one of the critical mistakes you make that show a lack of proper discrimination in your argument is is where you treat “merit or work for salvation” as synonymous with “the exercise of faith that might or might not involve the human will” and this is most evident in your follow up quote of Hendryx:
Salvation is entirely a work of God… man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith.
The exercise of faith, whether it be in the context of your synergistic definition or monergistic definition, is not viewed as a meritorious exercise in either case. So regardless of this element, (the exercise of faith) it is not considered by either party as a meritorious contribution to the “price” of salvation. But I am not here to argue that particular case or for synergism in general, rather to point out the flaw of your argument, particularly the failure of it to address all views and its demand that all views, which cannot be done theologically, be placed in either/or.

Would a monergist be comfortable with a statement like this:

God forces salvation upon people.

After all, if the Titanic illustration is correct, that everyone is a dead body just floating in the water, and God jumps in and breathes life into a body, wouldn’t that be a forcing of life into the body?

[Kevin Miller] Would a monergist be comfortable with a statement like this:

God forces salvation upon people.
Yes and no, depending on how one views force.

It is common for Synergists to attribute to Monergists the notion that God forces salvation upon people who don’t really want to be saved, and at the same time he refuses to save people who really do want to be saved. Nelson Price, in an article titled http://www.christianindex.org/2780.article] Evangelical Calvinism is an oxymoron , gives a bus illustration. There are folks who want to ride the heaven bound bus, but are turned away, while others who may not have wanted to ride the bus are invited to ride. he writes:
A graphic understood by many Baptists regarding predestination is illustrated by this. A mass of people are gathered at a bus stop marked “Planet Earth.” Along comes the Celestial Bus marked “Destination Heaven.” It pulls up and stops. The driver, who is God, opens the door, and says, “All destined for heaven get on board.” A number do. A missionary couple who with zeal have served Christ all their lives start on and God says, “Step aside. You haven’t been chosen to ride this bus.” A couple of infants start on and God tells them to step aside. Persons who from youth have loved and ministered in Christ’s name are told to step aside. As the bus is about to depart and the door is closing God says to those not on board, “Catch the next bus.” “No,” they plead, “here comes the next bus and it is driven by Satan and marked ‘Destination Hell.’”

“Sorry,” says God. “I didn’t choose to save you. Your love and commitment to Jesus doesn’t matter.”
Besides the fact that the illustration is an egregious mis-characterization of Calvinism, his premise is that some desire to ride the bus and are turned away.

Monergism affirms that man is the enemy of God who does not want to ride the bus God is driving. Also that God is not obligated to make those enemies into his dearly loved friends. With that as a premise, there is force used to change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. It is a regenerating force, exactly like breathing life into a corpse. The Monergist also affirms that those corpses that have life forcibly breathed into them have a changed will, one that no longer desires to continue as an enemy of God.

Notice the affirmation of force in http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html The Canons of Dordt - 3rd and 4th Points
Article 12: Regeneration a Supernatural Work

And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.
In the “Rejection of Errors” portion of the same section gentle persuasion is denied:
Who teach that the grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or(as others explain it) that the way of God’s acting in man’s conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God’s work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.

For this teaching is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture, which recognizes besides this persuasion also another, far more effective and divine way in which the Holy Spirit acts in man’s conversion. As Ezekiel 36:26 puts it: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; and I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh….

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[Alex Guggenheim] I do not believe that there is only one of two possibilities regarding our identifying and defining the elements and agents involved in the process of one believing the gospel and being regenerated.

But I am not here to argue that particular case or for synergism in general, rather to point out the flaw of your argument, particularly the failure of it to address all views and its demand that all views, which cannot be done theologically, be placed in either/or.
It seems to me that there are only 3 possible approaches to salvation:

1. God does everything

2. Man does everything

3. God and man share in the doing

I covered all of these options in the article. The 2nd option I defined as Pelagianism, which the majority of conservative evangelicals would reject. That leaves us with an either/or situation. Since you believe that is a flawed approach, would you identify and explain the alternative(s)?

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[JohnBrian] It seems to me that there are only 3 possible approaches to salvation:

1. God does everything

2. Man does everything

3. God and man share in the doing
I do not believe the inadequacy is contained in these general themes (though I am not commending them necessarily as an expression of the most basic options) rather the inadequacy (which I believe is reflected the treatment of the issue in your article) is contained in your definition of terms and subsequent use of these definitions in making your argument.

Take #1, above. “God does everything”. What does that mean? What is the meaning of “does” and “everything”. When a person believes on Christ, for example, does God breath for that person, thus sustaining his biological life and enabling him to stay alive so that he may, indeed, believe? Does God choose for him to consume the necessary nutrients so that he may sustain life and enable him to hear the gospel and believe? Does God do the listening to or hearing of the gospel for this person without the self, being involved in any manner? Does God do the formulating of questions in the mind of the person yet believing in the process of his inquiry, whether it be one hour or ten years without this person’s being, having any involvement? These may seem irrelevant but they are not when you use this inclusive term. If you mean by everything only to have in view the everything of a certain category, then you must, in very specific detail, explain this exclusive category and what does and does not qualify. What is the everything you have in view and how do you justify excluding other things that are present when one believes such as their respiratory functions that they are choosing to continue with that are necessary to keep them alive in order to believe and be saved?

And when you say God does, what is it that God does? Does he do the believing, the work itself, or does he take over every single element of the context of one believing, which includes biological and psychological life?

You have to be specific and you are not. Your position must be exhaustive, it must be able to withstand prescriptive examination. If you say something is so and one attempts to prescribe its principle in a place that it fails, then you must modify your assertion.

And ultimately this is, again, best illustrated in your erring treatment of the exercise of faith and the meritorious work of Christ as categorically the same in your quotes of Hendryx (reference my earlier post).

[JohnBrian]
[Kevin Miller] Would a monergist be comfortable with a statement like this:

God forces salvation upon people.
Yes and no, depending on how one views force.
Thanks for your response. I can understand the “yes” part of your “yes and no” answer, given the quotations you posted, but I’m not sure i understand the “no” part. Are you saying that we cannot semantically use the word “force” to describe God’s condemnation of sinners even though we can use it in regards to God’s regeneration of sinners?

Here is my reasoning behind my semantic type questions. in my study of sin, I basically agree with the monergistic position, that mankind is dead in sin and cannot respond to God. Yet in the evangelization classes I have taken, there seems to have been more of a synergistic framework, and I am trying to reason things out here. For example, in evangelization classes, one of the steps is often refered to as “calling for a decision,” yet is the word “decision” a semantically correct way to describe man’s response to the gospel, if in the monergistic framework, man is inherently unable to respond to the gospel?

Also, does a monergist believe in the “age of accountability” in regards to the evangelization of children? I have always understood the age of accountability to be the age at which a child is able to understand the Gospel, and before that age, the child would not be accountable for their sins since they could not understand how their sins can be dealt with. If the monergistic position is that no one, at any age, can understand the Gospel without God’s “force,” then there really wouldn’t be a minimum or maximum age of accountability, right? Since everyone is accountable unless God’s “force” works in them.

Is there any Scriptural reason why God could not regenerate a one-year-old, since regeneration in entirely God’s work and has nothing to do with man’s ability to respond?

[JohnBrian] A little Calvinistic humor!

http://thelightheartedcalvinist.com/2010/11/03/the-semi-pelagian-narrow… The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism
9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?

A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.
There are 47 more Q and A’s
I view this as unrepresentative of my position as a one whose Particular Baptist DNA runs through Andrew Fuller. By the by, have you read Fuller or the New Hampshire Baptist Confession?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[quotel]
I have replied to Kevin’s questions in the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith thread.
Which I view as a poor answer. The questions were asked on this thread they should be answered on this thread.The questions were about regeneration, not specifically about the monergism synergism divide, so was trying to keep related issues together.
I view this as unrepresentative of my position as a one whose Particular Baptist DNA runs through Andrew Fuller. By the by, have you read Fuller or the New Hampshire Baptist Confession?
I have not read either. There is more I’d like to read than I have time to read,

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[Rob Fall] I view this as unrepresentative of my position as a one whose Particular Baptist DNA runs through Andrew Fuller. By the by, have you read Fuller or the New Hampshire Baptist Confession?
[JohnBrian] I have not read either. There is more I’d like to read than I have time to read,
Your problem is by not reading the New Hampshire Confession (found in Hiscox’s New Directory for Baptist Churches) and Andrew Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, you have not read some of the seminal documents upon which many here base their presuppositions knowingly or unknowingly. Fuller’s work alone was the basis for the work of William Carey, Charles Spurgeon and Francis Wayland.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Rob,

Is it the synergist or the monergist that you say has based
their presuppositions knowingly or unknowingly
om Fuller’s work?

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

John, is it your position that synergism = semipelagianism?

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

[James K] John, is it your position that synergism = semipelagianism?
Semi-Pelagianism is synergistic, but not all Synergists are Semi- Pelagian.

In http://sharperiron.org/comment/18499#comment-18499] post 7 of the http://sharperiron.org/article/ethos-statement-salvation-sanctification] Ethos Statement on Salvation & Sanctification thread, Kevin Bauder refers to Semi-Pelagianism as “genuine synergism,” and notes that Arminians are neither Pelagian nor Semi-Pelagian.
The Pelagian sees the difference strictly in the power of the human will, unassailable and unassisted. Pelagianism has no room for original sin and constitutes a complete denial of divine grace. Pelagianism is in effect a system of self-perfection.

The semi-Pelagian acknowledges human moral imperfection, but insists that the first movement toward God must come from the sinner in his own strength. If that effort is sincere, God will assist with cooperating grace. This is a genuine synergism. It is an abridgment of grace. This position does seem to be articulated by some Fundamentalists.

Traditional Arminians, however, fit neither of the above descriptions. They believe that the human will is completely disabled and that humans are dead in trespasses and sins. No human is capable of spontaneously originating any positive choice toward God. To such persons, God, as part of prevenient grace, provides sufficient ability to make an initial moral response to Him. Those who do make this response find that God responds with complete saving grace.

Traditional Lutherans take a slightly different approach. For them, no humans are capable of cooperating with the common grace of God before they are regenerated, but they are capable of resisting it. Those who do not resist are the ones who will believe.

All of these are non-Calvinistic positions. The first two are abridgments or denials of the gospel itself. Even if the latter two are erroneous, however, it is unfair to categorize them as either semi-Pelagian or as synergistic. In traditional Arminianism, traditional Lutheranism, and traditional Calvinism, salvation comes wholly from God. No saints in any of these traditions would claim any credit for their own salvation.
In http://sharperiron.org/comment/18525#comment-18525] post 18 of that thread I wrote:
I appreciate the distinction Dr Bauder makes between the Arminian and the non-calvinist/non-arminian/biblicist. The Calvinist and Arminian both view depravity in the same way, but diverge on the prevenient grace issue. Where we “militant calvinists” (to use Bob T’s term) see the arminian as being synergistic, he is not synergistic to the same degree and kind as the “non” guys. I have a greater appreciation and respect for the arminian position than I do for the “non” position, as the latter has no way to account for spiritually dead persons making choices that are pleasing to God. In my article I refer to that position as the “mostly dead” view of depravity. Sadly, much of what passes for evangelism is based on the view that man is mostly dead and is just holding out for the old ship of zion to pass by and for someone to throw him a life vest before he sinks below the waves.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Take #1, above. “God does everything”. What does that mean? What is the meaning of “does” and “everything”. When a person believes on Christ, for example, does God breath for that person, thus sustaining his biological life and enabling him to stay alive so that he may, indeed, believe? Does God choose for him to consume the necessary nutrients so that he may sustain life and enable him to hear the gospel and believe? Does God do the listening to or hearing of the gospel for this person without the self, being involved in any manner? Does God do the formulating of questions in the mind of the person yet believing in the process of his inquiry, whether it be one hour or ten years without this person’s being, having any involvement? These may seem irrelevant but they are not when you use this inclusive term.
The term “everything” is used to show a contrast between the part God plays in salvation and the part man plays in salvation. It might be clearer to show it as:

1. God does everything

2. Man does everything

3. God does something and man does something

Breathing and consuming necessary nutrients are not exclusive to salvation. Man does both of those in order to stay alive, but God is the source of the life. Man can certainly do the listening to the Gospel, but hearing it with understanding is dependent on God enlightening the mind (1 Cor. 2:14).

Formulating questions would come after hearing, so that would fall under the category of God being the cause.

Spurgeon, in the portion of his autobiography http://www.spurgeongems.org/tulip-df.pdf] defending Calvinism wrote:
One week night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all and that He was the Author of my faith—and so the whole doctrine of Grace opened up to me and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”
[Alex] If you mean by everything only to have in view the everything of a certain category, then you must, in very specific detail, explain this exclusive category and what does and does not qualify. What is the everything you have in view and how do you justify excluding other things that are present when one believes such as their respiratory functions that they are choosing to continue with that are necessary to keep them alive in order to believe and be saved?
The terms I used are fairly well recognized terms in the salvation discussion, so I didn’t feel the need to explain the category in “specific detail.” Besides that, my article is only a few pages shy of becoming a book, so some things had to be left out!

Note: Banner of Truth has a Spurgeon booklet titled http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/item_detail.php?5087] A Defence of Calvinism , containing the text of the above quote. It is also available at http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Calvinism-C-H-Spurgeon/dp/0851519733] Amazon , http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?isbn=0851519733&ev…] CBD , and http://www.monergismbooks.com/A-Defence-of-Calvinism-p-17695.html Monergism Books .

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Jack,

I always provide the links to other discussions that I refer to. If you will provide the link to your thread I will look at it and see if I want to join that discussion.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[Jack Hampton] And not even one Calvinist even attempt to refute what I said. Why don’t you be the first?
I think I’ll pass. You have your presuppositions and I have mine. You’ll not convince me to change mine and I won’t convince you to change yours.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[JohnBrian] Rob,

Is it the synergist or the monergist that you say has based
their presuppositions knowingly or unknowingly
on Fuller’s work?
Though, Fuller was a Particular Baptist hence Calvinist Baptist. I dare say you’d probably put him in the synergist column. FWIW, Spurgeon was a Fullerite. Among the Baptists, the only American grouping which is throughly monergistic (or Gillite) is the Primitive Baptists. Mind you this split occurred before 1830.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Rob Fall] Though, Fuller was a Particular Baptist hence Calvinist Baptist. I dare say you’d probably put him in the synergist column. FWIW, Spurgeon was a Fullerite. Among the Baptists, the only American grouping which is throughly monergistic (or Gillite) is the Primitive Baptists. Mind you this split occurred before 1830.
From what I googled on Fuller, he would definitely be classified as a monergist. When I finish this series I intend to do an article on Hyper-Calvinism. There is some confusion (caused in part by John R. Rice’s booklet) as to whom can be classified as Hyper or High.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[JohnBrian]
[Rob Fall] Though, Fuller was a Particular Baptist hence Calvinist Baptist. I dare say you’d probably put him in the synergist column. FWIW, Spurgeon was a Fullerite. Among the Baptists, the only American grouping which is throughly monergistic (or Gillite) is the Primitive Baptists. Mind you this split occurred before 1830.
From what I googled on Fuller, he would definitely be classified as a monergist. When I finish this series I intend to do an article on Hyper-Calvinism. There is some confusion (caused in part by John R. Rice’s booklet) as to whom can be classified as Hyper or High.
The he’d be considered an Evangelical monergist. As for Dr. Rice, it’s worth keeping in mind much of the the Calvinism he was seeking to refute was that typified by the Primitive Baptists.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Rob Fall] The he’d be considered an Evangelical monergist. As for Dr. Rice, it’s worth keeping in mind much of the the Calvinism he was seeking to refute was that typified by the Primitive Baptists.
I agree that Fuller (along with Spurgeon) would be considered evangelical.

Rice, in his booklet http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%… Hyper-Calvinism: A False Doctrine refers to 5 point Calvinists as hyper
Those who do believe a doctrine of God’s limited love, limited grace, limited atonement, and unchangeable plan to damn millions who could not be saved, are called hyper-Calvinists.
The result of that is that many fundamentalists such as http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/06/facebook-theological-discussio… my missionary friend confuse regular Calvinists with the hyper version, by.
…is never amazed at the mental gymnastics that hyper-cavinists will use to prove the ‘doctrine’ of limited atonement. BTW, did you ever notice that those spewing the doctrine of hyper-calvinism consider themselves to be part of the elect along with their kids and grandkids….Let’s go out and share the gospel!!!

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

But, considering the time of the books publication, I’ll still go with the Primitives as his primary target. They would have been his among most ardent foes in his days as a full time evangelist.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Jack Hampton in post 2] Those who believe in Synergism do not say that “salvation is from ourselves.”
[Alex Guggenheim in post 8] The exercise of faith, whether it be in the context of your synergistic definition or monergistic definition, is not viewed as a meritorious exercise in either case. So regardless of this element, (the exercise of faith) it is not considered by either party as a meritorious contribution to the “price” of salvation.
from the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-ephesians-28-what-gift] Ephesians 2:8: What is the Gift? thread
[Bob T. in post 14 ] faith is not a work
In my study I have come across 3 different view regarding election. There may be more but these 3 seem to be fairly common. Unconditional. conditional, and corporate. The conditional view insists that man’s faith is the condition upon which the electing choice of God is based. God’s election of any individual is based on his foreknowledge of man’s faith response to the Gospel, therefore God’s choice is logically secondary to man’s choice. At the same time the conditional-ists insist that faith is not a work.

Arminians posit prevenient grace (see http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/arminians-and-prevenient-g… here , http://www.fwponline.cc/v24i2/brushharbor.html here , and http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/prevenient-grace-and-l… here ), for all men without exception, which provides the enablement to respond in faith to the Gospel.

Jack Hampton in the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-jesus-pioneer-and-perfecter-of-our-…] Jesus the Pioneer and Perfecter of Our Faith thread doesn’t see the need for special grace.
[Jack Hampton in post 35] A man’s mind is not blind to the truths of the gospel. I also believe that since the gospel comes in the Holy Spirit then it is of sufficient power to shine its light so that all men can indeed see its truth. No special grace is needed.
Others, who identify themselves as neither Calvinist nor Arminian (sometimes referring to themselves as “Biblicists”), insist that God has enabled man but don’t show how He does. Shelton Smith in Part 2 of The Case Against Calvinism (SOTL - 09/17/10), writes:
Calvin’s total depravity teaching did not properly represent the condition of unsaved men, When the Bible describes the sinful condition of man, there is no question that he is depraved and totally so. Man is not inherently good; he is by nature a sinner.

But man’s total depravity must not be defined as total inability. The fact is that God has made arrangements for our salvation, and He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9)
If God has “made arrangements” for the salvation of all men without exception, why do some believe and others do not?

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/whatismonergism2… Hendryx in the article I referenced phrases it this way.
Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another? Does one make better use of God’s grace?
Since believing the Gospel and exercising faith are commendable actions, the individual who does both has acted more commendably than the one that does not. If faith is sourced in man, and the exercise of that faith causes God to elect that man, how does that not constitute some form of contribution (read work) to man’s salvation?

On the other hand, if faith is part of the gift that is given at regeneration, then man has not contributed anything sourced in him. All that is involved in his salvation comes from God, who alone receives the glory.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

You are still insisting that man is born innocent, and that God’s not choosing some of those men, is the cause for their destruction.

IT IS NOT!

Man’s destruction is solely his own responsibility, and God is a just judge when He casts unregenerate sinners into hell.

BUT, God is not only just, He is also the justifier of those who believe (Rom. 3:26). God is not obligated to be merciful, but he displays mercy to those He has chosen to be merciful to (Rom. 9:18).

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

JohnBrian,

The article that you reference states,

“The doctrine of original sin results in the doctrine that came after the Reformation known as Total Depravity.”

Please note the phrase “came after the Reformation”. The doctrine of Total Depravity is a relatively new doctrine. Augustine’s teaching of ‘original sin’ led is much older, beginning over 300 years after the establishment of the Church. The teaching of ‘original sin’ led to church leaders to advocate baptism of infants. Even prominent Reformer, Martin Luther, an Augustinian Monk, continued to promote the doctrine of “original sin” as taught by the Catholic church. To remedy the effects of original sin he continued the established “means of grace” of ‘infant baptism’. Martin Luther, and others before him, taught that infant baptism removed the effects of original sin, like the ‘bound will’. Once a child was baptized then he could be taught, because he could now “hear”, “understand” etc… “Infant Baptism” was seen as only one of several “means of grace” given by God to the church (to control the people? :) ).

One might wonder, what was God’s “means of grace” to deal with the effects of original sin in the OT, before God instituted baptism! Someone who believes this doctrine would likely point to the circumcision given to Abraham as its corallary. Then one might wonder how the effects of original sin was dealt with in girls! Or what about the people who lived before the circumcision of Abraham, like Seth, and Enoch?

Do you believe the long established teaching that infant baptism is a means of grace, and that it remedies the effects of orginal sin? After all it was taught by Martin Luther, and by other prominent theologians for over 1200 years, and now over 1700 years! If not, why not?

To be continued…

Cont…

***Side comment***

Do you understand the differences between the Catholic/Lutheran teaching that ‘regeneration occurs in infant baptism and the “washing of regeneration” eliminates the effects of ‘original sin’, and the Reformed view of regeneration? Did you know that there is a longstanding debate between the followers of Luther and Calvin, and that Lutherans charge the Calvinists of being “synergistic”!

It’s all pretty petty. It is all caused by a lack of understanding of the Truths of Scripture!

*** ***

REALLYPROGRESSIVE REVELATION

OK - So we have a timeline: There was the OT with its series of prophets, then God appeared in flesh, established the Church and gave the Spirit of Truth to lead men into all truth, then the Bible is completed. An then, nearly 300 years later, Augustine reveals the ‘doctrine of original sin’ and much later (nearly 1200 years) the doctrine of Total Inability is uncovered.

Is this a case of “progressive revelation” ?!! Men are not aware of the finer points of the impact of Adam’s sin and what God really does in regenration until about 1600 AD?

*** ***

This has been a little tongue-in-cheek. To really evaluate your charges of synergism against those who believe that faith precedes regeneration, I would ask you to clarify and commit yourself as you answer two questions (Okay, 4 questions, but two of them are yes or no answers) .

1. What is the work of God in regeneration? (What does God do to a man when He regenerates him? List as many of the different facets as you can think of.)

2. In Acts 16, the Philippean jailor asks, “What must I do to be saved”. Paul responds, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31)

2A. Is the jailor expressing a desire to be saved, and was the jailor already regenerated when he asked this question?

2B. Did the jailor have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before he would be saved?

2C. Was the jailor’s expression of faith synergistic— did he contribute to his salvation by exercising faith before he was saved?

In a contrast of views I see this:

I do not agree with:
Salvation is entirely a work of God… man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith.
I do agree that:
Salvation is entirely a work of God… man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unmerited by grace conditionally through faith.
As to the election, I do not believe in unconditional election.

I do believe in wholly unmerited election on the part of the elect.

The only true God is, who is, the only self evident truth not contingent on any thing else. "[There is] no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD." -- Proverbs 21:30.

[Alex Guggenheim] The exercise of faith, whether it be in the context of your synergistic definition or monergistic definition, is not viewed as a meritorious exercise in either case. So regardless of this element, (the exercise of faith) it is not considered by either party as a meritorious contribution to the “price” of salvation. But I am not here to argue that particular case or for synergism…
Hi Alex, I appreciate your input into this discussion. I read in a book by Samuel Chadwick something he worte to the effect that the exercise of faith is cannot be merited because it is the renunciation of all of merit.

Just thought that might interest you.

[JohnBrian] Monergism affirms that man is the enemy of God who does not want to ride the bus God is driving. Also that God is not obligated to make those enemies into his dearly loved friends. With that as a premise, there is force used to change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. It is a regenerating force, exactly like breathing life into a corpse. The Monergist also affirms that those corpses that have life forcibly breathed into them have a changed will, one that no longer desires to continue as an enemy of God.
It seems than that a sinner is saved apart from and before he exercises faith?

Since faith is seen as equivalent to being a work if it is something that man does, the act of God’s regenerating would assume the inclusion of His bestowal of faith at that same moment. As such, the famous Eph verse would more accurately reflect what occurs in salvation if ir were rendered something like, “For by God’s grace are you saved through His regenerating force and not by faith, lest there be the opening for human boasting.”

At least, to me, this is what seems to me to be suggested.

By the way, breathing into a corpse is not forcing life into a person. A dead person, as such, can neither accept or resist; it is an act performed upon the subject that is neither in accord with or against the will. Essentially, there is no will in a corpse, therefore, there is no willingness or resistance. The act may be a force but it is not forcing. To use the analogy with reference to a literal corpse is not what Ephesians 2 is referring, therefore, the analogy is misused and fails terribly. The bus analogy may be better.

At least, this is how I understand my reading of the Bible.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion.