Monergism or Synergism?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Monergism or Synergism

  • Monergism

    Votes: 12 70.6%
  • Synergism

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Total voters
    17
Oct 15, 2017
133
13
0
#1
Which view do you believe and can you say why?

I say Monergism and my reasons is this:

1.When Jesus said you have to be born again, the man who he was speaking to i think realized that Jesus means you cant birth yourself.

2.If Jesus only made salvation possible to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved? If everyone just failed to believe and obey enough? i think not because revelation says from all tribes and languages etc.

3.Bible says God works in us to will and do His good pleasure.

4.In acts it says all who were preordained to eternal life believed.

5.How can someone who is dead in trespasses and sins revive himself? And would he even want to?

If you disagree with my points say why you dont like them and whats wrong.

If you you think synergism is right also tell me why its right with verses.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,247
25,716
113
#2
1.When Jesus said you have to be born again, the man who he was speaking to i think realized that Jesus means you cant birth yourself.
Jesus made it clear He was speaking of Spiritual, heavenly things, not earthly matters. Is that what you mean?

2.If Jesus only made salvation possible to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved?
I cannot understand this question. Could you please clarify?
 
Oct 15, 2017
133
13
0
#3
Jesus made it clear He was speaking of Spiritual, heavenly things, not earthly matters. Is that what you mean?

I cannot understand this question. Could you please clarify?
Hi Magenta, yes thats what I mean, just like you cant birth yourself physically same goes for spiritual right?

What I mean by #2 is this: if Jesus only made salvation possible to all, so that each individual must believe and obey and its of themselves, is it possible that nobody would believe? What if everyone just said no, i dont wanna believe or obey. Thats possible i think in the synergistic view.
But if God saves, then the sacrifice of Jesus actually saved people, not just made salvation possible.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,937
113
#4
Monergism for justification

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1

Synergism for Sanctification

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:1-2


I assume you were talking justification in the OP. If not, I would like to change my vote!
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#5
Which view do you believe and can you say why?

I say Monergism and my reasons is this:

1.When Jesus said you have to be born again, the man who he was speaking to i think realized that Jesus means you cant birth yourself.

2.If Jesus only made salvation possible to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved? If everyone just failed to believe and obey enough? i think not because revelation says from all tribes and languages etc.

3.Bible says God works in us to will and do His good pleasure.

4.In acts it says all who were preordained to eternal life believed.

5.How can someone who is dead in trespasses and sins revive himself? And would he even want to?

If you disagree with my points say why you dont like them and whats wrong.

If you you think synergism is right also tell me why its right with verses.

Issue

I'm going to point out a logical error in ONE commonly stated argument from the monergist camp, and I'm going to point out why it's a logically incorrect argument.

Before I do, I want to point out 2 things:
1. I respect my Calvinist brothers, and consider their views both well-intended and well within orthodoxy, although I disagree with some points.
2. I'm going to point out 1 logical error with 1 argument they make; this does have the weight to refute all of their contentions, and it's not intended to.


Logical Error:

A. Here is the Monergist Argument:
"If Jesus only made salvation possible to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved?"


B. Here is the logical error.
1. This argument simply misrepresents the Arminian position by making presumptions, making "straw man" presumptions, about the Arminian position, which the Arminians do not hold to.

(Both sides often do this.)

2. The presumption is: the Arminian camp believes God is entirely removed from the salvation process, and that God is impotent to plan, lead, direct, or foresee the salvation process.

3. This is a wrong presumption. This is not the Arminian view, and so this presumption merely creates a straw man to attack, rather to attack the real Arminian position.

4. The philosophical Arminian view is this:
a.) God has perfect foreknowledge and thus the divine ability of PERFECT PLANNING: and he did NOT create man, or the world, in a manner in which no one would want to be saved.
b.) God could have created man in an infinite number of different ways, and he could have created the world in an infinite number of different ways, and he could have chosen to interact and reveal himself to us in an infinite different number of ways... but he did not.
c.) God created us in a very particular way, and created the world in a very particular way, and chose to interact with us in very particular ways... all with the planning, foreknowledge, and providence, to reconcile fallen creatures to himself.

5. Thus, with God's perfect foreknowledge, perfect planning, and perfect divine providence... it is NOT possible for God to have "accidentally" created a world in which no one would choose to be saved.

6. So, even if Calvism IS the correct theological position, this particular argument simply DOES NOT WORK as a logical refutation.



Conclusion:

A. It is perfectly reasonable for the Calvinist to debate, question, and find fault with, the Arminian positions.

B. However, this logically requires them to first articulate the ACTUAL Arminian positions.

C. The particular argument I mentioned here does NOT articulate the actual Arminian position, but rather creates a "straw man" position, a false position, and then attacks this false position.


* In all fairness, both sides are constantly doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Oct 15, 2017
133
13
0
#6
Monergism for justification

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1

Synergism for Sanctification

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:1-2


I assume you were talking justification in the OP. If not, I would like to change my vote!
Hi Angela, sorry i wasnt clear on what we were talking about. Yes i mean justification.
 
Oct 15, 2017
133
13
0
#7
maxwel thanks for pointing that out to me. I cant edit it anymore it says. But still thanks for contribution and pointing out my misunderstanding
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#8
Regarding my post above,
there may be some Arminians who hold very different, very weak, and very untenable views on these issues.

My intention was not to defend every PERSON who calls himself Arminian, but rather to simply show some of these arguments are unsound arguments.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#9
maxwel thanks for pointing that out to me. I cant edit it anymore it says. But still thanks for contribution and pointing out my misunderstanding

Rokurac,

You were merely stating a very common argument.
It is so commonly used that I doubt many intelligent, well-meaning people in your camp ever even consider questioning it.

Both sides do this.


I have no problem with you at all.
And I have no problem with you posing difficult questions... that's a very biblical thing to do.


But overall, I think both sides underestimate the opposing side.
I've learned a lot from my Calvinist friends.



God Bless
 
Last edited:

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,937
113
#10
Issue

I'm going to point out a logical error in ONE commonly stated argument from the monergist camp, and I'm going to point out why it's a logically incorrect argument.

Before I do, I want to point out 2 things:
1. I respect my Calvinist brothers, and consider their views both well-intended and well within orthodoxy, although I disagree with some points.
2. I'm going to point out 1 logical error with 1 argument they make; this does have the weight to refute all of their contentions, and it's not intended to.


Logical Error:

A. Here is the Monergist Argument:
"If Jesus only made salvation possible to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved?"


B. Here is the logical error.
1. This argument simply misrepresents the Arminian position by making presumptions, making "straw man" presumptions, about the Arminian position, which the Arminians do not hold to.

(Both sides often do this.)

2. The presumption is: the Arminian camp believes God is entirely removed from the salvation process, and that God is impotent to plan, lead, direct, or foresee the salvation process.

3. This is a wrong presumption. This is not the Arminian view, and so this presumption merely creates a straw man to attack, rather to attack the real Arminian position.

4. The philosophical Arminian view is this:
a.) God has perfect foreknowledge and thus the divine ability of PERFECT PLANNING: and he did NOT create man, or the world, in a manner in which no one would want to be saved.
b.) God could have created man in an infinite number of different ways, and he could have created the world in an infinite number of different ways, and he could have chosen to interact and reveal himself to us in an infinite different number of ways... but he did not.
c.) God created us in a very particular way, and created the world in a very particular way, and chose to interact with us in very particular ways... all with the planning, foreknowledge, and providence, to reconcile fallen creatures to himself.

5. Thus, with God's perfect foreknowledge, perfect planning, and perfect divine providence... it is NOT possible for God to have "accidentally" created a world in which no one would choose to be saved.

6. So, even if Calvism IS the correct theological position, this particular argument simply DOES NOT WORK as a logical refutation.



Conclusion:

A. It is perfectly reasonable for the Calvinist to debate, question, and find fault with, the Arminian positions.

B. However, this logically requires them to first articulate the ACTUAL Arminian positions.

C. The particular argument I mentioned here does NOT articulate the actual Arminian position, but rather creates a "straw man" position, a false position, and then attacks this false position.


* In all fairness, both sides are constantly doing the same thing.

I think you have presumed a bit too much, too!

2. "The presumption is: the Arminian camp believes God is entirely removed from the salvation process, and that God is impotent to plan, lead, direct, or foresee the salvation process."

In fact, I thought, as a former Arminian, which is also the point of this thread, is that the Arminian camp believes God and humans work together for salvation. Is that not the meaning of synergy? Is the question not to do "with God alone," versus "God and humans working together?" I see no place that the question is asked here, or anywhere else, that "people alone are responsible for salvation!"

So, a person makes a decision, and God honours that by saving the person. I can honestly say, I don't know a single person who believes that Arminians saved themselves, from any camp. They believe that they are part of the process, not the entire process!

I do not know a single person that believes that God is impotent, to plan, lead direct or foresee the salvation process from any camp- not Arminian, nor Reformed nor in between.

Of course, if someone believes this, please post. I did learn a lot a while back from some posts on the whole soteriology debate, and that included that God is certainly ALWAYS part of the plan of salvation.


So, you have posited something that is not true, therefore, the rest of your objections are null and void! And, I would also say you are making a straw man about what Reformed people believe about what Arminians believe!
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,763
113
#11
Which view do you believe and can you say why?
It all depends on what people mean by *Monergism*. If it means (as some believe) that a sinner must be born again BEFORE he believes the Gospel, that is not only false but absurd. If it means that the New Birth is the result of the power of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to Christ, by convicting and convincing them, then that is according to Scripture.

In any event: (1) the New Birth is SUPERNATURAL and totally the work of God and (2) unless sinners believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior, they cannot be born again. So both of these things are expressed in John 1:12,13:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#12
I think you have presumed a bit too much, too!

2. "The presumption is: the Arminian camp believes God is entirely removed from the salvation process, and that God is impotent to plan, lead, direct, or foresee the salvation process."

In fact, I thought, as a former Arminian, which is also the point of this thread, is that the Arminian camp believes God and humans work together for salvation. Is that not the meaning of synergy? Is the question not to do "with God alone," versus "God and humans working together?" I see no place that the question is asked here, or anywhere else, that "people alone are responsible for salvation!"

So, a person makes a decision, and God honours that by saving the person. I can honestly say, I don't know a single person who believes that Arminians saved themselves, from any camp. They believe that they are part of the process, not the entire process!

I do not know a single person that believes that God is impotent, to plan, lead direct or foresee the salvation process from any camp- not Arminian, nor Reformed nor in between.

Of course, if someone believes this, please post. I did learn a lot a while back from some posts on the whole soteriology debate, and that included that God is certainly ALWAYS part of the plan of salvation.


So, you have posited something that is not true, therefore, the rest of your objections are null and void! And, I would also say you are making a straw man about what Reformed people believe about what Arminians believe!


Angela,

I never said Reformed people believe any particular thing at all.

I said ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT was not a sound argument.
That is all.

I said ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT has INHERENT PRESUPPOSITIONS... and logically, if you REMOVE those presuppositions, that argument simply falls apart under it's own weight.

The PROOF that argument has presuppositions, is that if you remove the presuppositions, and insert the real arminian view... the argument falls by it's own weight.
This is the proof the argument contains presuppositions.



Now Angela, my dear friend, I have no idea what you're going on about.
I didn't ascribe some horrible condition of ignorance and presupposition to my Calvinist brothers.
I simple said ONE ARGUMENT is a not a good argument.

If you want to debate that Calvinism is the correct position, you may very well win that debate.
But if you want to debate whether this one particular argument is sound... I don't think that's going to work.
I get tired of hearing these straw man arguments, from both sides, and so I tried to explain how this argument is unsound.
This does nothing to disprove, or even attack, the entire Calvinist position.



I pointed out ONE ARGUMENT was not a good argument.
I did nothing more, and nothing less.
: )
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#13
Monergism for justification

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1

Synergism for Sanctification

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:1-2


I assume you were talking justification in the OP. If not, I would like to change my vote!

Thats my answer as well :)
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#14
Issue



Logical Error:

A. Here is the Monergist Argument:
"If Jesus only made salvation possible to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved?"


B. Here is the logical error.
1. This argument simply misrepresents the Arminian position by making presumptions, making "straw man" presumptions, about the Arminian position, which the Arminians do not hold to.

(Both sides often do this.)

2. The presumption is: the Arminian camp believes God is entirely removed from the salvation process, and that God is impotent to plan, lead, direct, or foresee the salvation process.

3. This is a wrong presumption. This is not the Arminian view, and so this presumption merely creates a straw man to attack, rather to attack the real Arminian position.

4. The philosophical Arminian view is this:
a.) God has perfect foreknowledge and thus the divine ability of PERFECT PLANNING: and he did NOT create man, or the world, in a manner in which no one would want to be saved.
b.) God could have created man in an infinite number of different ways, and he could have created the world in an infinite number of different ways, and he could have chosen to interact and reveal himself to us in an infinite different number of ways... but he did not.
c.) God created us in a very particular way, and created the world in a very particular way, and chose to interact with us in very particular ways... all with the planning, foreknowledge, and providence, to reconcile fallen creatures to himself.

5. Thus, with God's perfect foreknowledge, perfect planning, and perfect divine providence... it is NOT possible for God to have "accidentally" created a world in which no one would choose to be saved.

6. So, even if Calvism IS the correct theological position, this particular argument simply DOES NOT WORK as a logical refutation.



Conclusion:

A. It is perfectly reasonable for the Calvinist to debate, question, and find fault with, the Arminian positions.

B. However, this logically requires them to first articulate the ACTUAL Arminian positions.

C. The particular argument I mentioned here does NOT articulate the actual Arminian position, but rather creates a "straw man" position, a false position, and then attacks this false position.


* In all fairness, both sides are constantly doing the same thing.


We know Arminians are ,Synergistic then Synergistic. But the question is still a valid question...


""If Jesus only made salvation possible (or open) to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved?"

Since we know God is steadfast, then in the synergistic view, it comes down to the person making the decision. So if it is down to the person then it is quite possible in that view that no one will be saved.

Lets state it another way, if God is perfect in His drawing all men, then the logical conclusion is that the decision ultimately lies with the person. Not with God, since He is drawing all men to Himself.





 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#15
I believe we do call out for eternal salvation, but that is through being convicted by the Holy Spirit in the first case.

I don't see this as a work or self-effort. It is simply a response to being convicted.

Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't agree with irresistable grace or being saved before we believe.
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#16


You're not representing Arminianism correctly. Further study, all you're doing is presuming bro.

* In all fairness, both sides are constantly doing the same thing.
Unsubstantiable. More presumption. You make this assertion often with no real evidence other than some guy told you, as far as what I've seen you offer.
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#17
I believe we do call out for eternal salvation, but that is through being convicted by the Holy Spirit in the first case.

I don't see this as a work or self-effort. It is simply a response to being convicted.

Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't agree with irresistable grace or being saved before we believe.
Hi wattie,

I think alot of people believe that way.. It is interesting, does the Holy Spirit convict everybody or just some?
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#18
I believe we do call out for eternal salvation, but that is through being convicted by the Holy Spirit in the first case.
Agreed, amen!

I don't see this as a work or self-effort. It is simply a response to being convicted.
I've seen exactly no one say it is a work. It is evidence of conversion, not the cause.

Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Yes.

I don't agree with irresistable grace
Like most you probably have your ideas on what it teaches which would be faulty. Most assume what it means merely by the phrase.

or being saved before we believe.
We cannot see the kingdom of heaven until we are born again, John 3:3. This is called regeneration.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#19
We know Arminians are ,Synergistic then Synergistic. But the question is still a valid question...


""If Jesus only made salvation possible (or open) to all, is it possible that nobody would be saved?"

Since we know God is steadfast, then in the synergistic view, it comes down to the person making the decision. So if it is down to the person then it is quite possible in that view that no one will be saved.

Lets state it another way, if God is perfect in His drawing all men, then the logical conclusion is that the decision ultimately lies with the person. Not with God, since He is drawing all men to Himself.






Phil,

I clearly, specifically, and in great detail explained the problem with this particular argument, and how this argument is not logically sound.
I explained very precisely, exactly where the presupposition is found, and then I showed very clearly that if you remove the presuppositions, the argument falls... because without the presupposition, it has no ability to reach the conclusion it does.

I was very clear, and tried to be very articulate.

I don't know how I could be any more clear, or any more precise.




Now, it's fine to pose arguments.
But this one particular argument only works through inherent presuppositions which misrepresent the Arminian side.

I don't think most Christian's misrespresent their opponents intentionally.
But it still happens all the time, and I think we'd all do better to make a more serious effort to truly understand our opponent's position... rather than putting our entire focus on winning a debate.

I think some of this happens because there are a lot of very strange emotional components to this whole debate... like pet arguments.

Both sides have FAVORITE or PET arguments.
They have these pat answers, pet arguments they toss at each other like hand grenades, that prove their point, and shut people down, because these pet arguments are CLEVER RHETORIC.
But "clever rhetoric" does not equal "logically valid".
This gets even weirder because sometimes our PET ARGUMENTS are things we feel very attached to, and we're quite emotional about them.
But again, they may often shut people down because they are "clever rhetoric", not because they are logically sound.
I see both sides doing the same things.



Most Calvinist I know get very upset when their views are "minimized" and "misrepresented"... and they have every right to feel this way. And yet... sometimes Calvinists feel quite comfortable doing the same thing to their opponents.

My contention is that both sides misrepresent each other... often unintentionally... and that's why both sides are always so upset.


We don't hear each other because we have absolutely no interest in listening.
This happens on both sides.
It's just lovely.
: )
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
4,586
1,046
113
#20
i vote monergism. because i have read the Bible.


*chuckles gently*
:)