"monergism" and "synergism"

[Guest]

Homer,

Quote:.... "practically everyone who has posted here will think I'm wrong about something"..

Looks to my like your'e in good company!

Bob

[Guest]

Whilst I also appreciate the opportunity to post here and engage conversation, I just have to say that there is no reason to throw up so much dust about "isms" etc, when I and a few others, as representatives of reformed thought, have only been defending "One" idea and not all these "ism's".

That one big thought is caught up in the term "Monergism", the very term you used in your comment.

I am arguing that the only real position that is consistently or dare I say it "simply Christian" is the belief that God alone saves sinners through the accomplished atonement upon the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Missing Jesus from that perspective is not an option, for it gives Him all the due that He only rightly deserves.

He is a real actual Saviour who really takes away sin and accomplishes a redemption that Arminians spend so much time negating.
Seems to be clear from my perspective just who might possibly miss Jesus in all of His fullness.

Desiring to throw out truth, not dust.
Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

"He is a real actual Saviour who really takes away sin and accomplishes a redemption that Arminians spend so much time negating."

Could you be so kind as to explain what part of your statement you have heard negated by Arminians? Where are these Arminians, and could you direct me to an example, in one of their posts, where they are spending so much time negating these things?

If you cannot present any such examples (as I am sure you cannot), would it be asking too much of you to abstain from slandering people whose views you obviously do not understand?

[Guest]

Mark,

I am arguing that the only real position that is consistently or dare I say it "simply Christian" is the belief that God alone saves sinners through the accomplished atonement upon the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Agreed! Amen and AMEN! Praise God.

He is a real actual Saviour who really takes away sin and accomplishes a redemption that Arminians spend so much time negating.
Seems to be clear from my perspective just who might possibly miss Jesus in all of His fullness.

Oops. Disagree again.

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

"He is a real actual Saviour who really takes away sin and accomplishes a redemption that Arminians spend so much time negating."

Could you be so kind as to explain what part of your statement you have heard negated by Arminians? Where are these Arminians, and could you direct me to an example, in one of their posts, where they are spending so much time negating these things?

If you cannot present any such examples (as I am sure you cannot), would it be asking too much of you to abstain from slandering people whose views you obviously do not understand?

Steve if you really think I do not understand Arminianism, then simply ask me some simple questions and I will answer. See my Spurgeon quote below. If I do not understand it, then neither did he.

I do understand Arminianism.

You do not believe that when Jesus died upon the cross, He was actually dying for "Person a" and "person h" and "person n" etc.
That, you do not teach nor believe.
You deny an accomplished salvation that God alone provides for many.
You deny Issiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed.

The "our" and the "we" spoken of here are the same people in verse 8, "for the transgression of My people He was stricken."
And if it is not quite clear enough for you, the Prophet goes on to say in verse 11, "By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify for many; and He shall bear their iniquities."

You believe Jesus died upon the cross for "The Whole world".

But Matthew plainly tells us, Mat 1:21 "for He shall save His people from their sins."

You teach that Jesus did not actually "atone" for anyone in particular at the time of the cross. (if for all, then we have Universalism)
He did not "propitiate" for anyone in particular at the cross. (same as above)

The atoning work of Jesus Christ is only made "effectual" to those that choose to make it effective. (free will Theism)

You preach a gospel that centres upon "those that choose" and not upon what "Jesus" actually did for the "many".

Why would you attack me when all I am saying is what you clearly believe?

If I am wrong, I will apologise, but I have listened carefully to what you teach and say.

Am I missing something?
From my perspective as a Calvinist, your position negates an accomplished salvation.
Your idea of an accomplished salvation is really a Synergistic salvation.

I am just saying what Spurgeon said,

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not.

The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question — Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer " No." They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent.

They say "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if" — and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement — Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did he? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish.

Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody, We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.

We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.

You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way, it does not secure the salvation of anybody.

Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream." (Charles Spurgeon.)

He also said,

Hence if man be, as we aver he always is, if he be a bond-slave as to his will, and will not yield to the invitation of God’s grace, then in such a case the atonement of Christ would be valueless, useless, and altogether in vain, for not a soul would be saved by it; and even when souls are saved by it, according to that theory, the efficacy, I say, lies not in the blood itself, but in the will of man which gives it efficacy.

Redemption is therefore made contingent; the cross shakes, the blood falls powerless on the ground, and atonement is a matter of perhaps.

In Christ's name
Mark

[Guest]

You believe Jesus died upon the cross for "The Whole world".

But Matthew plainly tells us, Mat 1:21 "for He shall save His people from their sins."

IMHO, there is no discrepancy in a Non-Calvinist declaring that Christ died for the World and also believing what Christ said in Matthew 1:21.

... You preach a gospel that centres upon "those that choose" and not upon what "Jesus" actually did for the "many".

I cannot recall when I have ever heard a Non-Calvinist categorically declare this. That's not to say such a person doesn't exist -- I simply haven't found one. Again, Steve's original question is still pending an answer. We don't mean to sound pushy or rude, we simply would like you to please provide us with some solid, concrete evidence, by directly quoting a member of this forum.

[Guest]

Mark,

A few remarks, if I may, on your post to Steve.

You wrote:

Steve if you really think I do not understand Arminianism, then simply ask me some simple questions and I will answer. See my Spurgeon quote below. If I do not understand it, then neither did he.

I do understand Arminianism.

I'm not sure I understand Arminianism. I do think I understand Christianity and that is what concerns me. I do not quite grasp your understanding of the atonement.

You wrote:

You do not believe that when Jesus died upon the cross, He was actually dying for "Person a" and "person h" and "person n" etc.
That, you do not teach nor believe.

Neither do I. You appear to view the atonement as a purely commercial transaction; Jesus died for a fixed number of pre-selected individuals, suffered exactly so many milliseconds for each elect person, and cried out "It is finished" when the last one on the list was atoned for. I can see why you call it "limited" atonement. There is no room for even one more!

Consider the following:

2 Chronicles 29:20-24 (New King James Version)

20. Then King Hezekiah rose early, gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of the LORD. 21. And they brought seven bulls, seven rams, seven lambs, and seven male goats for a sin offering for the kingdom, for the sanctuary, and for Judah. Then he commanded the priests, the sons of Aaron, to offer them on the altar of the LORD. 22. So they killed the bulls, and the priests received the blood and sprinkled it on the altar. Likewise they killed the rams and sprinkled the blood on the altar. They also killed the lambs and sprinkled the blood on the altar. 23. Then they brought out the male goats for the sin offering before the king and the assembly, and they laid their hands on them. 24. And the priests killed them; and they presented their blood on the altar as a sin offering to make an atonement for all Israel, for the king commanded that the burnt offering and the sin offering be made for all Israel.

Would you agree or disagree that the atoning sacrifices of the Old Testament for Israel prefigure the atoning sacrifice of Messiah for His Church? And where do you see in the passage above that the atonement was for individuals as apposed to a class of people?

Paul wrote:

Ephesians 5:22-29 (New King James Version)
22. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26. that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27. that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

I do not believe Christ died for me, except as I am in Christ, a part of the Church. His atonement was for His Church, whosoever may come. It is efficacious for all in His body, and potentially efficacious for everyperson who ever lived.

If I were to give every last possession I have to the poor, crawl from one end of the earth to the other proclaiming the gospel, and die burning in flames as a martyr for Christ, I would add absolutely nothing to the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice.

[Guest]

Homer and anyone else.
I would love to continue this conversation over at doctrinesofgrace.net.
Simply come over and post in the reformed category in the forums.

You will be treated very well, and I assure you that we do not have thin skins over there.

These matters are very important, even if Steve does not think so - (The whole Calvinist/Arminian thing).
You all have an open invitation, and I will personally give any of you all the space you need to lay out your position and or discuss these matters more fully.

And if I have not answered any of your concerns here, please come over and I will do my utmost to satisfy your concerns.

Thanks and God bless you all.

Mark

[Guest]

"(yes, we had an advocate of polygamy here for awhile. Not so easy to prove him wrong as you might think.)"

Where did I go?

[Guest]

"(yes, we had an advocate of polygamy here for awhile. Not so easy to prove him wrong as you might think.)"

Where did I go?

Yeah, where have you been?