Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 1

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.html Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism .

I begin the article:

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.html there

9704 reads
Jack Hampton's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
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.


This is a rather simplistic and inaccurate presentation of Synergism.

Those who believe in Synergism do not say that "salvation is from ourselves." We understand that no one can conjure up faith out of nothing but instead the sinner must first hear the gospel which brings life:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Ro.10:13-15).

Not only are the facts of Synergism being misrepresented but to equate Synergism to "universal heathenism" is nothing but a hatchet job. This is the same type of thing we have already seen on another thread where a very prominent proponent of Calvinism calls dispensationalism a cult because some in the dispensational community do not agree on every issue concerning a sinner's salvation.

JohnBrian's picture

Jack Hampton wrote:
...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

Jack Hampton's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
As a Monergist I affirm this statement. The Holy Spirit, by MEANS of the proclaimed Gospel, grants life to spiritually dead individuals.

You cling to the ridiculous idea that it is through the MEANS of the proclaimed gospel that the sinner receives life even though logically that sinner receives life BEFORE he even believes that gospel.

Your idea is contradicted by the Scriptures that state in no uncertain terms that it is a result of "believing" that one receives life:

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

Regeneration (passing from spiritual death unto spiritual life) does not precede faith but instead it is the result of faith.

Jack Hampton's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
I will deal with this passage in Part 2 of my series

I can hardly wait!

While you are at it please deal with the following verses which are also speaking of "regeneration":

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved), And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:5-6).

According to your ideas the sinner is regenerated "together with Christ" and "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"--all this, logocally, before the sinner has believed!

However, it is inconceivable that it would be said that anyone was risen with Him and is sitting together with Him in heavenly places before they had their sins forgiven. The following verses make it plain that the forgiveness of sins goes hand and hand with being regenerated "together with Him":

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).

The forgiveness of sins and being regenerated together with Him is a result of "faith":

"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:43; NIV).

You have the regeneration "together with Him" and the forgiveness of sins happening logically before one believes. But that idea is contradicted by the Scriptures.

JohnBrian's picture

...you would have read the following

Quote:
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

Alex Guggenheim's picture

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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Kevin Miller's picture

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?

JohnBrian's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:
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:

Quote:
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

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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

JohnBrian's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
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

Alex Guggenheim's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
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).

Kevin Miller's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
Kevin Miller wrote:
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's picture

A little Calvinistic humor!

http://thelightheartedcalvinist.com/2010/11/03/the-semi-pelagian-narrowe... The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

Quote:
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

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

Rob Fall's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
A little Calvinistic humor!

http://thelightheartedcalvinist.com/2010/11/03/the-semi-pelagian-narrowe... The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

Quote:
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..

JohnBrian's picture

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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's picture

Rob Fall wrote:
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 wrote:
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..

JohnBrian's picture

Rob,

Is it the synergist or the monergist that you say has based

Quote:
their presuppositions knowingly or unknowingly
om Fuller's work?

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

James K's picture

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.

JohnBrian's picture

James K wrote:
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.

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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

JohnBrian's picture

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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 wrote:
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&eve... ]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 Hampton's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
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).

JohnBrian, I started a thread on this very verse entitled "The Natural Man Receiveth Not the Things of the Spirit of God" which demonstrates that the Calvinist's understanding of this verse is in error.

And not even one Calvinist even attempt to refute what I said. Why don't you be the first?

JohnBrian's picture

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

JohnBrian's picture

Jack Hampton wrote:
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

Rob Fall's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
Rob,

Is it the synergist or the monergist that you say has based

Quote:
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..

JohnBrian's picture

Rob Fall wrote:
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

Rob Fall's picture

JohnBrian wrote:
Rob Fall wrote:
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..

Pages