Consistent with what? And please don't say "the Bible."
It seems that (forgive me) you are trying, in this post, to force people into proof-texting from this verse only. If someone tries to explain how it fits into their larger view, you say it's irrelevant, or off topic, or what not. But clearly this verse...or any other verse...is insufficient to establish monergism, synergism, or any other -ism. Of course what I'm saying here is clearly off topic...
Now, back to being consistent. I do grant that monergists are consistent in their interpretation of this verse within their framework. I do not agree that synergists are inconsistent.
What I said in my post way back in Page 1 of this thread, referencing the Incarnation, is quite relevant. The only way we know God is through the Son. The only way we know the Son is through the Incarnation. The only reason we can be saved is because of the Incarnation. The only reason we have any hope at all is because of the Incarnation.
I do not believe that the monergist position is consistent with the Incarnation, at least as it was historically understood and defined by the councils that Calvinists themselves generally claim to accept. (That would be councils 1-6, although some tend to ignore 5 and 6).
God "began" a good work in Christ. God completed that good work. The only reason we are saved by the work of Christ is...drumroll!...the Incarnation. Human and Divine were united in the one person of Christ. They cooperated perfectly. Each nature has its own will, and each will was free relative to the other (the whole point, basically, of the 6th Ecumenical Council). So every work of Christ was fully human and fully God. When God begins a good work in us (regeneration), we become part of the Body of Christ...drumroll...Incarnation!...thus his completing the good work in us in no way negates our own role in the process of salvation.
Whether or not we have any role to play in our regeneration is another issue too. I can see how the monergist position
could be interpreted to be consistent with what I said above. But still I see no conflict with our own wills being involved even in that. Salvation has always been a human-divine cooperation. Really the matter shifts to the questions of "total depravity" and the like, which really do fall outside the bounds of this thread...although how one interprets this specific verse will completely depend on the position they already hold on other points (like man's will, depravity and the like).
Anyway, there ya' go. What I'm saying is inconsistent with the monergist position. It is consistent with the synergist position. So your statement that "it's the consistent position of monergists but not of synergists" is inaccurate. Each is consistent within its own understanding of the relationship between human and divine will.
