Reformed. Does monergism apply only to salvation/regeneration?

[Mark Quayle]

--Or does it apply to the rest of the believer's life?

Monergism generally only refers to the regeneration of the believer being the work of God alone --that is, that we do not even cooperate in our own salvation by "accepting" or being an active agent in receiving the Lord. God alone chooses, puts his Spirit within (without asking our permission or submission), and thus regenerates us --even our faith is this same gift, not the work of the will or intellect.

Thus we have received him, not by our decision, but by his. The subsequent repentance and submission (call it "accepting him" if you like) is a result, and not the cause of his action upon us, and even THAT is made substantial by the fact of "Christ in us", not by any inherent integrity of human will.

I am convinced that any good the will of the believer does subsequent to salvation is also entirely the work of God. We may be "along for the ride", but this ride does consume us, as he continues to uphold us. Our will is most definitely involved, enroiled, extremely so, but it is not a matter of him doing his part and we doing ours. It is all him, and we are IN HIM.

There are a lot more themes involved in this thought, but I will leave it here for now.

Your thoughts?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Is this what Reformed theology actually believes?

 

[GaveMeJoy]

--Or does it apply to the rest of the believer's life?

Monergism generally only refers to the regeneration of the believer being the work of God alone --that is, that we do not even cooperate in our own salvation by "accepting" or being an active agent in receiving the Lord. God alone chooses, puts his Spirit within (without asking our permission or submission), and thus regenerates us --even our faith is this same gift, not the work of the will or intellect.

Thus we have received him, not by our decision, but by his. The subsequent repentance and submission (call it "accepting him" if you like) is a result, and not the cause of his action upon us, and even THAT is made substantial by the fact of "Christ in us", not by any inherent integrity of human will.

I am convinced that any good the will of the believer does subsequent to salvation is also entirely the work of God. We may be "along for the ride", but this ride does consume us, as he continues to uphold us. Our will is most definitely involved, enroiled, extremely so, but it is not a matter of him doing his part and we doing ours. It is all him, and we are IN HIM.

There are a lot more themes involved in this thought, but I will leave it here for now.

Your thoughts?

My issue with the whole concept, though I resonate theologically with the helpless nature of us sinners and our inability to seek God (ROM 3, And basically all human examples ever in the Bible or history), is placing a human rational scaffolding on the concept like reformed folks do makes it so fallible and man made. Instead of being able to embrace the tension in the scriptural truths of the will of man and the sovereignty of God, we try and create a salvation in our own image we can understand. It leads to more human thought and less truth IMO

 

[Aussie Pete]

--Or does it apply to the rest of the believer's life?

Monergism generally only refers to the regeneration of the believer being the work of God alone --that is, that we do not even cooperate in our own salvation by "accepting" or being an active agent in receiving the Lord. God alone chooses, puts his Spirit within (without asking our permission or submission), and thus regenerates us --even our faith is this same gift, not the work of the will or intellect.

Thus we have received him, not by our decision, but by his. The subsequent repentance and submission (call it "accepting him" if you like) is a result, and not the cause of his action upon us, and even THAT is made substantial by the fact of "Christ in us", not by any inherent integrity of human will.

I am convinced that any good the will of the believer does subsequent to salvation is also entirely the work of God. We may be "along for the ride", but this ride does consume us, as he continues to uphold us. Our will is most definitely involved, enroiled, extremely so, but it is not a matter of him doing his part and we doing ours. It is all him, and we are IN HIM.

There are a lot more themes involved in this thought, but I will leave it here for now.

Your thoughts?

God does not violate man's free will. God gave the right to choose to Adam in Eden. That right has never been revoked. The tension is summed up by "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

The will of man follows the desire of his heart. God puts His desires into our hearts. We then choose to follow our innermost being or the desires of self. God works in our lives to encourage us to choose His will. It's a struggle for the vast majority of Christians. There is always at least one time when the choice between God's will and self will is a crisis. Lord Jesus faced it in Gethsemane. He accepted God's will. The rich young ruler went away disappointed. He had too much to lose.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

God does not violate man's free will. God gave the right to choose to Adam in Eden. That right has never been revoked. The tension is summed up by "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

The will of man follows the desire of his heart. God puts His desires into our hearts. We then choose to follow our innermost being or the desires of self. God works in our lives to encourage us to choose His will. It's a struggle for the vast majority of Christians. There is always at least one time when the choice between God's will and self will is a crisis. Lord Jesus faced it in Gethsemane. He accepted God's will. The rich young ruler went away disappointed. He had too much to lose.

My question here is basic logic: where does the “we” come from in this scenario. One thing free will folks dodge is where our desires and decisions come from. God is the potter, we are the clay, all of our character traits. Temperaments, proclivities, interests and desires (outside of sin) come directly and permanently from Christ. The sin comes from our human flesh. So ALL of that is predetermined by our sinful flesh, and personality, both of which are not under our control and are not our fault or responsibility. Lastly, circumstances play a huge role in our decision making and choice to accept or reject God, and a sovereign God is always responsible for those circumstances.

so there is nothing left that’s from “us.” So how can we “choose” anything. It’s Disingenuous to say that brainwashed backpack exploding mohammad from Tehran “chose” to reject God. Please....that guys circumstances set him up to die and burn for eternity. What about the Muslims who do convert you ask? God had to put some pretty intense boldness and strength of character to rise up out of everything and find Jesus.

TLDR: free will isn’t real in the way we understand it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

My question here is basic logic: where does the “we” come from in this scenario. One thing free will folks dodge is where our desires and decisions come from. God is the potter, we are the clay, all of our character traits. Temperaments, proclivities, interests and desires (outside of sin) come directly and permanently from Christ. The sin comes from our human flesh. So ALL of that is predetermined by our sinful flesh, and personality, both of which are not under our control and are not our fault or responsibility. Lastly, circumstances play a huge role in our decision making and choice to accept or reject God, and a sovereign God is always responsible for those circumstances.

so there is nothing left that’s from “us.” So how can we “choose” anything. It’s Disingenuous to say that brainwashed backpack exploding mohammad from Tehran “chose” to reject God. Please....that guys circumstances set him up to die and burn for eternity. What about the Muslims who do convert you ask? God had to put some pretty intense boldness and strength of character to rise up out of everything and find Jesus.

TLDR: free will isn’t real in the way we understand it.

I think what you are saying is that a man acts in accordance with his nature, within the limitations of his physical environment. Is that correct?

 

[Mark Quayle]

God does not violate man's free will. God gave the right to choose to Adam in Eden. That right has never been revoked. The tension is summed up by "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

The will of man follows the desire of his heart. God puts His desires into our hearts. We then choose to follow our innermost being or the desires of self. God works in our lives to encourage us to choose His will. It's a struggle for the vast majority of Christians. There is always at least one time when the choice between God's will and self will is a crisis. Lord Jesus faced it in Gethsemane. He accepted God's will. The rich young ruler went away disappointed. He had too much to lose.

I see where this is going. You take it as logical that predestination negates choice. I disagree. "Free Will" runs a whole gamut of flavors, but independent choice, or worse, uninfluenced choice it certainly is not.

I seem to remember you from another thread or two, that seemed to repeat ad infinitum, this idea, that Free Will is only real choice when God is hands off. Me personally, I see no reason it must be so. In fact, I think since we are influenced on all sides and from within, even if we consider it to be apart from God's control, we call it Free Will. So why shouldn't it be Free Will also, if God is the one who put these influences in our way?

But perhaps even more important is our makeup. We were made for him, not for ourselves. Apart from him we are substanceless. We are powerless. It is he that makes us genuine.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My issue with the whole concept, though I resonate theologically with the helpless nature of us sinners and our inability to seek God (ROM 3, And basically all human examples ever in the Bible or history), is placing a human rational scaffolding on the concept like reformed folks do makes it so fallible and man made. Instead of being able to embrace the tension in the scriptural truths of the will of man and the sovereignty of God, we try and create a salvation in our own image we can understand. It leads to more human thought and less truth IMO

To a degree, I agree with your observations. I question any arrangement of doctrine that puts a handle on an infinite bucket. Nevertheless, we use them all the time --including defining the Gospel, and defining God, and the use of the word Trinity. We find it necessary to have a common reference with which to converse.

But for the same reasons, I dislike the idea of some sort of "tension" as necessary in understanding predestination vs free will. But anyway, the topic of this thread was not to prove or disprove monergism. It was whether monergism applies to more than just salvation, in the believer's temporal life with Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is this what Reformed theology actually believes?

Is WHAT what Reformed theology believes --that God regenerates prior to the believer realizing that God is indeed Lord? Or that it applies through all of the believer's righteous acts, deeds, thoughts, decisions subsequent to regeneration?

 

[Aussie Pete]

I see where this is going. You take it as logical that predestination negates choice. I disagree. "Free Will" runs a whole gamut of flavors, but independent choice, or worse, uninfluenced choice it certainly is not.

I seem to remember you from another thread or two, that seemed to repeat ad infinitum, this idea, that Free Will is only real choice when God is hands off. Me personally, I see no reason it must be so. In fact, I think since we are influenced on all sides and from within, even if we consider it to be apart from God's control, we call it Free Will. So why shouldn't it be Free Will also, if God is the one who put these influences in our way?

But perhaps even more important is our makeup. We were made for him, not for ourselves. Apart from him we are substanceless. We are powerless. It is he that makes us genuine.

We differ on what free will means, it seems to me. If I have only two choices, I still have free will. I can't choose an option not available. That is the bleeding obvious, to me anyway. Everyone is influenced by something in some way. We do not live in a vacuum. Every choice is influenced and in fact, contested. Satan and God are after the same thing. The cooperation of man's will. Satan will use any and every possible means, including lies, deception, bribery, corruption and all kinds of evil. God's way is always truthful, honest, just, gracious, merciful and loving.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

I think what you are saying is that a man acts in accordance with his nature, within the limitations of his physical environment. Is that correct?

Yes. And even if he acts contrary to his nature, the very fact that he’s doing so must come from outside IE God

 

[GaveMeJoy]

We differ on what free will means, it seems to me. If I have only two choices, I still have free will. I can't choose an option not available. That is the bleeding obvious, to me anyway. Everyone is influenced by something in some way. We do not live in a vacuum. Every choice is influenced and in fact, contested. Satan and God are after the same thing. The cooperation of man's will. Satan will use any and every possible means, including lies, deception, bribery, corruption and all kinds of evil. God's way is always truthful, honest, just, gracious, merciful and loving.

I see what you are getting at. It seems a little like dualism, that God and Satan are fighting and jockeying for better standing in our independent minds and which ever wins over our independent minds wins.

I find it more consistent that God chooses some and not others, AND all people have free will. But no one wants to let those two concepts coexist, hence reformed and free will camps, when both concepts are poorly understood and equally true according to a plethora of scripture.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

To a degree, I agree with your observations. I question any arrangement of doctrine that puts a handle on an infinite bucket. Nevertheless, we use them all the time --including defining the Gospel, and defining God, and the use of the word Trinity. We find it necessary to have a common reference with which to converse.

But for the same reasons, I dislike the idea of some sort of "tension" as necessary in understanding predestination vs free will. But anyway, the topic of this thread was not to prove or disprove monergism. It was whether monergism applies to more than just salvation, in the believer's temporal life with Christ.

For sure.
God understands how both concepts can be true quite clearly because the scriptures outline there is are elements of sovereignty and will involved in receiving the gift. The tension is on our side

 

[Mark Quayle]

For sure.
God understands how both concepts can be true quite clearly because the scriptures outline there is are elements of sovereignty and will involved in receiving the gift. The tension is on our side

What tension? Lol. Fwiw, Reformed theology does not deny choice. That is a caricature that says it denies choice.

 

[hedrick]

I find it more consistent that God chooses some and not others, AND all people have free will. But no one wants to let those two concepts coexist, hence reformed and free will camps, when both concepts are poorly understood and equally true according to a plethora of scripture.

Actually, much of the Reformed tradition does want them to coexist. Virtually everyone who holds monergism also holds compatibilism. Compatibilism maintains that free choice is consistent with predestination.

I'm going to summarize an analysis from Jonathan Edwards. He asks when we should call someone free. Generally we do so when they aren't constrained. If someone is holding a gun on me, I'm not free. What makes an act responsible is that it reflects my character and goals. Anything that impedes that, such as force, decreases my responsibility.

But the fact that God regenerated me, or that my parents brought me up well, or whatever else went into forming my character, doesn't make my decisions unfree. Indeed under some Arminians, the only free person is one that acts at complete random. But we don't consider that freedom. We consider it madness.

Augustine wasn't quite as single-minded on this issue as, e.g. Dordt, so you can find various things in different works of his. But at one point he suggests that a person who isn't regenerated isn't free, because they're under bondage to sin. Regeneration frees them from. It makes them capable of responding to God. And having been freed from bondage, why would anyone reject God?

I note that this is not entirely consistent with Edwards' analysis, because the latter would consider both the unregenerate and the regenerate responsible for their actions, and by his definition free. (I actually prefer to use responsible rather than free, since free means rather different things to different people.)

 

[hedrick]

As to the OP, I think there's some tension within the Reformed tradition between two different approaches to election. In some sense these correspond to what I summarized as Edwards and Augustine (though I think I probably oversimplified). Predestination can look rather like fate. God is in complete control. He plans everything. We're free, in the sense defined by Edwards. But the whole thing can look mechanical at times.

On the other hand, election can be more personal. It is carried out by the Holy Spirit working within us to free us to do God's will.

The first perspective sees everything, not just our salvation, but everything that happens, predestined. That's the issue the OP raises. The second focuses election on our relationship to God.

I don't think you have to pick one or the other, and in fact I think Reformed typically believe both. But the focus tends to be on one or the other.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Indeed under some Arminians, the only free person is one that acts at complete random. But we don't consider that freedom. We consider it madness.

Absolutely.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

As to the OP, I think there's some tension within the Reformed tradition between two different approaches to election. In some sense these correspond to what I summarized as Edwards and Augustine (though I think I probably oversimplified). Predestination can look rather like fate. God is in complete control. He plans everything. We're free, in the sense defined by Edwards. But the whole thing can look mechanical at times.

On the other hand, election can be more personal. It is carried out by the Holy Spirit working within us to free us to do God's will.

The first perspective sees everything, not just our salvation, but everything that happens, predestined. That's the issue the OP raises. The second focuses election on our relationship to God.

I don't think you have to pick one or the other, and in fact I think Reformed typically believe both. But the focus tends to be on one or the other.

You, my friend, know how to respond to someone with questions or a different perspective in a Godly and respectful way. Rare skill, wish I had it!

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

--Or does it apply to the rest of the believer's life?

Monergism generally only refers to the regeneration of the believer being the work of God alone --that is, that we do not even cooperate in our own salvation by "accepting" or being an active agent in receiving the Lord. God alone chooses, puts his Spirit within (without asking our permission or submission), and thus regenerates us --even our faith is this same gift, not the work of the will or intellect.

Thus we have received him, not by our decision, but by his. The subsequent repentance and submission (call it "accepting him" if you like) is a result, and not the cause of his action upon us, and even THAT is made substantial by the fact of "Christ in us", not by any inherent integrity of human will.

I am convinced that any good the will of the believer does subsequent to salvation is also entirely the work of God. We may be "along for the ride", but this ride does consume us, as he continues to uphold us. Our will is most definitely involved, enroiled, extremely so, but it is not a matter of him doing his part and we doing ours. It is all him, and we are IN HIM.

There are a lot more themes involved in this thought, but I will leave it here for now.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that God gives us no reason to doubt. Cut that how you will.

Continued from other thread...

Christ invites us to partake of His Spirit once we are in Christ, not before. This doesn't mean we play no part in doing Good. It takes being a partner with the Holy Spirit, and with Christ, in service to God to do Good. We are constantly "receiving" from the Holy Spirit as believers, and we do our best to put that into action. The Holy Spirit does not take control of our bodies when we do Good, as Good as it can be given we are not Christ. We act on behalf of Christ, not perfectly, but by whatever power the Holy Spirit grants us to do Good. We always have to receive from the Holy Spirit to do Good, but it is impossible to do purely as we still have some blindness in us due to our Flesh. We do more Good by seeking to do Good making us less blind to what the Spirit is empowering us with.

The same could be said about becoming a believer. Certainly we play a part, since we are changed, we WILL necessarily respond in faith, repentance, obedience and love for Christ. But WE are not the cause. I don't say we don't play a part in anything, but that God alone is the one who does the work, though we too wear ourselves out for his sake. We are not without him able to do anything, even post regeneration. Our efforts don't complete his, nor add to them --our efforts are HIS. We are in Christ, and he in us.

We find ourselves believing, and our hearts ache with gratefulness and desire for Christ in us --we also find ourselves obeying, and our hearts ache for purity and closeness to God.


Took me a bit to find it. I'm not too good at computers.

Reformed. Does monergism apply only to salvation/regeneration?

Where I disagree is that I don't think the Holy Spirit robs us of our will when we do Good. If that was the case, then there would be no point of rewards in heaven.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where I disagree is that I don't think the Holy Spirit robs us of our will when we do Good. If that was the case, then there would be no point of rewards in heaven.

The Holy Spirit doesn't rob us of our will in regeneration either. It is true he gives us rebirth without our permission, so in that sense I guess you could say it is not according to our will, but then, after that regeneration, I see that my will is still too weak to do anything, but continuously needs that spring of living water.

I'm just guessing here, but it seems you may know what I'm talking when I say that Christians cling desperately to self-determination. While I don't dispute that post regeneration we are able to choose Good, in every situation it is still only according to God's choosing --we are not suddenly made autonomous. when we are regenerated.

Sadly, yet joyfully, I admit that my experience bears this out. God has drilled this into me, that apart from him I can do nothing --even when according to my best assessment I desperately desire what is Good, even necessary, obedience, I am unable to do it --HE does it.