Does being a Synergist makes you "boast"?

[ArmyMatt]

Okay. What do the terms mean?

exactly what you said it's not. that man working with God is man getting out of God's way, and God working through man.

 

[Jonaitis]

exactly what you said it's not. that man working with God is man getting out of God's way, and God working through man.

I understand legal theology is a western thing, but can you explain what the councils understood about synergism, this might help me understand where you are coming from?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I understand legal theology is a western thing, but can you explain what the councils understood about synergism, this might help me understand where you are coming from?

simply put, man was created to submit to God, freely but totally. we can in Christ, Whose humanity was fully united with His Divinity. by grace, we become like Christ. Christ is the prototype in Whom we are all created, so we are created to freely let God work through us. even the freedom to say yes is a grace given by Christ.

St Maximos the confessor is one to check out.

 

[Jonaitis]

simply put, man was created to submit to God, freely but totally. we can in Christ, Whose humanity was fully united with His Divinity. by grace, we become like Christ. Christ is the prototype in Whom we are all created, so we are created to freely let God work through us. even the freedom to say yes is a grace given by Christ.

Hm, but doesn't this sound like God's grace only enables us to choose, and when we choose we credit God for the enablement?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hm, but doesn't this sound like God's grace only enables us to choose, and when we choose we credit God for the enablement?

His grace also sustains us. it's impossible apart from Him.

 

[Jonaitis]

His grace also sustains us. it's impossible apart from Him.

Wait, is this similar to the RCC belief of infusing grace makes us gradually more "righteous"? I'll put Maximos on the list.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wait, is this similar to the RCC belief of infusing grace makes us gradually more "righteous"? I'll put Maximos on the list.

in a sense, because we ever deeper commune with Christ, Who is our righteousness.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

In that same line of thought, what about monergists that say that a synergist is claiming God only does part of the work in saving you?

I read a good article decades ago that address some of this problem from Calvinists. The ending of the article, I think really gets at what your talking about.



FJ: God predestines according to foreknowledge and His eternal purposes. Part of His eternal purpose is that Man would love Him of his own free will, and not by any necessity. Those that respond to God's grace are foreknown and predestined to be heirs of Salvation, according to God's eternal purposes. Those that reject God's grace, are foreknown, and are accordingly appointed unto damnation. Those that reject God's grace are therefore, justly condemned.

For some reason, you think that this cooperation would mean that man merits his salvation. But if some ransomed prisoners choose to stay with their captors, while other choose to be free, no one would say that those thus freed had merited their release.

Dialogue on Free Will & Determinism

 

[Jonaitis]

in a sense, because we ever deeper commune with Christ, Who is our righteousness.

What's wrong, if I may ask biblically, with understand salvation as individual aspects (regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc), instead of conflating them as one aspect? I agree with the phrase that we are being saved, being conformed, becoming holy (sanctification)...but this is different than the legal aspect of salvation (justification). What's wrong with viewing that as different aspects of our total redemption in Christ?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What's wrong, if I may ask biblically, with understand salvation as individual aspects (regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc), instead of conflating them as one aspect? I agree with the phrase that we are being saved, being conformed, becoming holy (sanctification)...but this is different than the legal aspect of salvation (justification). What's wrong with viewing that as different aspects of our total redemption in Christ?

nothing, depending on how you understand it

 

[Jonaitis]

I read a good article decades ago that address some of this problem from Calvinists. The ending of the article, I think really gets at what your talking about.



FJ: God predestines according to foreknowledge and His eternal purposes. Part of His eternal purpose is that Man would love Him of his own free will, and not by any necessity. Those that respond to God's grace are foreknown and predestined to be heirs of Salvation, according to God's eternal purposes. Those that reject God's grace, are foreknown, and are accordingly appointed unto damnation. Those that reject God's grace are therefore, justly condemned.

For some reason, you think that this cooperation would mean that man merits his salvation. But if some ransomed prisoners choose to stay with their captors, while other choose to be free, no one would say that those thus freed had merited their release.

Dialogue on Free Will & Determinism

My problem, though, is where is this understood biblically? It sounds similar to a form of Arminianism (or Semi-Palgianism) that suggests that we are sick, not dead, and God's grace is the medicine that heals us. Whereas, Scriptures speaks of us as dead who needs a one way resurrection to do and act.

 

[Jonaitis]

nothing, depending on how you understand it

Are we justified legally, or is it some gradual point we must attain? I'm off topic, I'll end it here...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Are we justified legally, or is it some gradual point we must attain? I'm off topic, I'll end it here...

both

 

[Pavel Mosko]

My problem, though, is where is this understood biblically?

The problem with "Bibically" is, I think you are assuming that Augustine's position that Calvin builds on is thee position of the Bible by default. Other Church Fathers lived before Augustine and saw that there was more of a balance between free will and predestination. Augustine emphasized things like predestination more than the other Church Fathers, but this may have been a role of his Manichean past. Which is a subject that some folks have explored in recent times like this dissertation writer.


A dissertation was written to explore the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s (354-430) doctrine of Predestination. John Calvin (1509-1564) admits that his theology was already developed by Augustine, so the question is then: How did Augustine arrive at his view of Predestination, which is quite the opposite of what was publicly taught within the church for the first 300 years of early church history. It should be noted that Augustine was himself a Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before converting to Catholicism. Generally, it is thought that Augustine developed his theology on predestination after debating with Pelagius (354-420/440), but Kam-lun E. Lee suggests that it was developed from Augustine’s debates with the Manichaeans, in terms of the inevitability of personal evil and divine cosmic ordering (or divine sovereignty, if you will).


Examining Calvinism: Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good

 

[ArmyMatt]

My problem, though, is where is this understood biblically? It sounds similar to a form of Arminianism (or Semi-Palgianism) that suggests that we are sick, not dead, and God's grace is the medicine that heals us. Whereas, Scriptures speaks of us as dead who needs a one way resurrection to do and act.

we WERE dead and ARE dead apart from Christ. God's grace is the medicine which restores us to life.

 

[straykat]

My problem, though, is where is this understood biblically? It sounds similar to a form of Arminianism (or Semi-Palgianism) that suggests that we are sick, not dead, and God's grace is the medicine that heals us. Whereas, Scriptures speaks of us as dead who needs a one way resurrection to do and act.

We all were born into death. But those who are baptized have died and experienced the first resurrection here and now. And "Blessed is he who has part in the first resurrection", for as many as have been "baptized into Christ have put on Christ". And putting on Christ is the medicine that ArmyMatt mentions. Not some "work"... unless you want to call Christ himself a "work".

But while we have died in baptism, we still live with the perfection and hope of the Second Resurrection.. even after baptism, this is the state of "sickness". To have life in the Spirit, but still be chained to a body of death. As St. Paul laments, "who will deliver me from this body of death?" But we are not properly called "dead" anymore if we also have the Spirit. Those who live without Christ are the truly dead ones, sadly.

 

[straykat]

What's wrong, if I may ask biblically, with understand salvation as individual aspects (regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc), instead of conflating them as one aspect? I agree with the phrase that we are being saved, being conformed, becoming holy (sanctification)...but this is different than the legal aspect of salvation (justification). What's wrong with viewing that as different aspects of our total redemption in Christ?

Honestly, I think "justification" and "sanctification" are similar enough to what we're talking about. But this inclination to segregate them is different from Orthodox usage, that's all. We "conflate" them because we also "conflate" all of Christ as a single person as well. His death and resurrection aren't separate events per se. It's all one glorious act of God. And I would include his Incarnation as well.. Already Christ conquered human nature and history and made cosmic impact simply for being born. All of them play a part in our salvation.

edit: Ahem.. I don't want to say I'm speaking on behalf of orthodoxy by saying "justification" and "sanctification" are similar enough. I'm sure some would differ with that. So this all just my personal opinion.

 

[icxn]

How does that work when Jesus called regeneration, for an example, an act of being "born again" (John 3:5-8)? I don't understand the parallel if we cooperate with God. We don't necessarily choose to be born, so wouldn't rebirth capture this aspect of the new creation?

Though we don't choose to be born, how we live our life is ours to choose. Being "born again" is only the beginning of our spiritual life.

What about circumcision of the heart? This is another description for regeneration (Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 2:11 etc). If I recall, circumcision was normally performed when an infant was eight days old by their parents (Genesis 17:12). I see this as part of the imagery we are suppose to understand, besides the putting off the "foreskin" of our most private part (a heart is private too).

While bodily circumcision is impossible (or maybe difficult) to undo, the circumcision of the heart, which is the cleaning of our inner house can easily be undone if we don't struggle to maintain it after our regeneration (Matthew 12:44-45).

What about when regeneration is paralleled with a resurrection (Ephesians 2:1-6; etc)? I don't see people raising themselves from the dead; I don't recall Lazarus doing this. I don't understand the parallel if we cooperated with God.

Lazarus did many things to gain Christ's affection so as to raise him from the dead.

What about the imagery of slavery (Romans 6:17-22)? I don't think slaves frees themselves, nor do they choose their preferred master. Where is the parallel of our cooperation with God in this?

In choosing to obey their master or not.

"...you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish." (John 10:26-28).

Lost sheep don't look for their shepherd, that's another parallel. Interesting connection too, sheep are dumb (in the stupid sense) and cannot look out for themselves. We are sheep.

Sheep are not dumb, they are guileless and meek - virtues which the world sees as foolishness - and they offer their shepherd wool, milk and meat. Wool is our efforts to practice God's commandment, which He takes and weaves for us the garment of righteousness. As for what milk and meat symbolize if you are wise you will figure it out.

The point of all these is that there are things expected of us, namely our willingness and our feable efforts to obey God, things that the Grace of God brings to perfection.

 

[icxn]

I usually hear monergists saying that believing in faith alone makes you not wanting to boast on yourself or "on your works". Do you ever feel like this has happened to you?

It can happen, which is why Christ offered the following medicine:

Luke 17:10

So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”
​

Matthew 5:30

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.​

Right hand is our good works, which, if they cause us to boast (sin) and become proud, it is better to cut them off.

 

[Not David]

@ArmyMatt I wish I would be as wise and patient as you Fr. Matt.