Must Visit Website

If you haven't yet, you simply must visit Monergism.Com, for great theology and Bible study resources.

Posted by TulipGirl | 11:48 PM| TrackBack (0) | Words

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tulipgirl.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/39

Comments

Neat. Thanks.
Posted by: Missy at January 31, 2004 05:40 PM

I've looked over Mr. Hendryk's site, and I have to say, his chart is completely inaccurate. Essentially he constructs a straw-man argument which does not teach synergism as the Church has taught it since the beginning. And therefore he is able to conveniently dismiss his caricature of syngergism. Unfortunately, his own case for monergism is as thoroughly unbiblical as he claims is synergism.

To understand what the Church really has taught about "synergism" (or the Christian life of faith), I suggest starting with Philippians 2:12-13. Next, Ephesians, Heberews and James. Then, John, and . . . well, you get the point.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 1, 2004 03:56 AM

I have to agree with Clifton. Mr. Hendryk and monergism.com is teaching something heretical, and his arguements for his position are invalid and dangerous.
Posted by: JohnH at February 5, 2004 07:53 PM

Clifton and John,

I understand that we come from different theological perspectives.

However, to use the term "heretical" is quite a serious statement. I suggest you take it up with Mr. Hendryk himself.

I still recommend monergism.com as a wonderful gateway to theological resources online.
Posted by: TulipGirl at March 2, 2004 02:13 PM

TulipGirl:

Either synergism is true or monergism is true. Because they are logically incompatible and incommensurable, they cannot both be true at the same time.

Furthermore, if one is true, the other is necessarily false.

So it's not a matter of different theological perspectives. It's a matter of what is and isn't true.

I use the term "heresy" because monergism has been judged, for more than a thousand years, to be contrary to the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church. Heresy is a serious term, and not one I use flippantly or lightly. Because there are serious consequences for believing mongergism.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 2, 2004 04:03 PM

To begin with, you may notice that my initial post was not about the theological idea of monergism in regeneration. It was kudos to an excellent website that indexes many topics by historic and contemporary Christian pastors, preachers and authors.

Many are from a Reformed perspective, which as you are aware, is the theological framework that I find best lines up with what God has revealed to us through the Bible.

My post was not about monergism, per se, as a theological concept. However, you seemed quick to latch on to that and eager to make it a point of debate.

I like to assume the best of people. Perhaps we are just on different pages with what is meant by monergism in regeneration?

Mr. Hendryk named his site Monergism.Com after the idea of monergism in regeneration. He quotes the Century Dictionary's definition in his explanatory essay,

"In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

Is this idea--that the Holy Spirit and not the human will is the efficient agent in regeneration--the idea that you find heretical?
Posted by: TulipGirl at March 2, 2004 10:21 PM

TulipGirl:

I suppose that since a site calls itself after a heresy, it would be natural that I immediately gravitate toward that. If it had been something else, "Reformed Biblical Theology" or what have you, I would doubtless have missed it altogether. But it sort of hits one right off.

Now to answer your question:
If, and to be clear I have to offer this caveat, Hendryk means by "only efficient agent" (and given his definition, it seems he does) that the human agent does not in any way contribute to regeneration, then, yes, that is heresy.

But note, Hendryk assumes something Scripture does not teach: that the human has no inclination whatsoever toward holiness. This is the premise which must be proven. Some handful of centuries post-Dort (I think, I could be wrong, when TULIP was officially formulated), this premise has yet to be proven as Scriptural.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 2, 2004 11:53 PM

Clifton, is there a site for synergism that is anything close to the monergism site? Monergism is actually my favorite website and I hit this blog to see what kind of pages were linking to it.
Philippians 2:12-13 is obviously to believers... just like Romans 7 is obviously about Paul as a believer.
The scripture proof for monergism has not been *accepted* or submitted to only by those wishing on their own personal holiness (or worthiness if you're a Mormon). It makes me sick.
Posted by: Leroy at April 1, 2004 04:22 PM

I grew up thinking more along the -synergistic- line of thought, But after finding out about the -monergistic- view, it is really quite difficult to deny -monergism- since there are so many scriptures in the Bible that seems to clearly support such a view, One verse in particular is (Ephesians 2:5--
even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved). That word "dead" in that verse should really make a person think and wonder, "...if I am now saved and in order to be saved I had to repent and believe, How did I do either of those things if I were as dead as dead can be?" Do you see what I mean?

Posted by: Roy Hall at April 9, 2004 01:55 PM

Basically, synergism (also known as Arminianism) is the belief that God has given man the choice to accept Him or reject Him. Most Christians now accept the view but many hard-core Calvinists still consider Arminianism heretical (because they are monergists, which implicitly means those who believe in predestination exclusively, which has ramifications for who the person of God is along the lines of "What kind of God arbitrarily assigns some to go to hell?"). For the most part Protestants and Pentecostals now accept these tenets and it conforms to the Catholic positions of the Council of Trent, as well as to the beliefs of the Orthodox church.

It is important to point out that the notion that free will denies free grace is not a Biblical view, however.
Posted by: JohnH at April 15, 2004 11:40 PM

Note that both Pelagianism and Armenianism are synegistic, but Pelagianism isn't right, so I suppose I should be careful in that some might think I mean Pelagianism, which I don't.

Pelagianism means that man must take the first step unto salvation, and the grace of God comes afterwards.
Pelagianism = first faith and then grace no
(emphasis on individual works)

Arminianism means that God gives mankind "prevenient grace" (grace beforehand) and then we accept by faith.
Arminianism=grace first and then faith. yes
(emphasis on individual faith)

However, the monergistic view taken by the die-hard Calvinist says that this grace is irresistable, and only given to an unconditionally accepted group. Armenianism says that grace in universal (offered to all) and is resistable (accepted by our faith).

So note that Armenianism, which is a synergistic view, does NOT say that faith comes before grace, therefore is is NOT Pelagian. From the Armenian Remonstrance: "(The) grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good."
Doesn't sound Pelagian.

Okay, I have work to do.
Posted by: JohnH at April 15, 2004 11:59 PM

RSS RSS2 Atom

Creative Commons License

In My Garden