Monergism refuted

[themuzicman]

Actually, it indicates no such thing. If there's any subset it could be referring to the message as a whole, rather than that one sentence.

The flow of the story indicates that the crowd as a whole asked what they should do, but only some of those accepted it and were baptized. There isn't anything to indicate that only some asked the question.

[DaveKicks]

Dunamai represents the concept of being able to do something. Thus, John 6:44a-b literally reads, "No one is able to come to [Christ], unless the Father draw him..."

Thus, Jesus is clearly talking about ability.

This is the whole point of monergism.

Furthermore, in John 6:45, Jesus puts the onus on the individual to respond to the teaching of the father by saying that the one who hears (and this verb is the same one Jesus uses when saying "he who has an ear let him hear", it has the sense of embracing and obeying) and learns (and this verb isn't an intellectual learning, but rather learning by experience) will come to Him. Clearly there is a response necessary, here.

Again, you're misrepresenting monergism. Reread RBerman's posts in this thread - monergism is in relation to the change of heart only. Yes, it leads universally to a response of repentance, but that repentance - formed in the regenerated heart - is voluntary.

You are confusing monergism in general with hyper-Calvinism. And it's annoying.

Really? Did you bother to read the whole passage?

Re-read my last post. When Peter declared that Jesus was the Messiah in v36 those who God regenerated understood what was offered.

Clearly not all there who asked the question accepted the message and were baptized. The language here pretty clearly indicates that those baptized were a subset of thsoe who heard and asked the question.

This does not follow: It is just as legitimate to interpret the passage this way: The subset of the audience that was baptized were the same ones who asked the question. That is, all those hearers whose desires had been changed and are represented in v37 were the ones baptized.

____________________________

PS - I'm honestly not that interested in this conversation anymore so I'll bow out now.

[themuzicman]

This is the whole point of monergism.

Not quite... and you admit this, here:

Again, you're misrepresenting monergism. Reread RBerman's posts in this thread - monergism is in relation to the change of heart only. Yes, it leads universally to a response of repentance, but that repentance - formed in the regenerated heart - is voluntary.

First, if monergism has been watered down to the point that it just means that God enables someone to believe, then it means practically nothing. However, your attempt to separate out the bolded section from monergism, and then somehow claim that there is a voluntary but universal response of repentance exposes the intellectual; dishonestly, here.

You see, if the repentance is universal, then it isn't voluntary. It's like saying that a computer program was put into a robot to pick blue cups, but every robot it is put into voluntarily picks blue cups.

It doesn't work that way. It is clear from any Calvinist perspective that the individual who is regenerated is also made to repent. They have no free will over that decision whatsoever.

You are confusing monergism in general with hyper-Calvinism. And it's annoying.

No, you're trying to distinguish yourself from hyper calvinism, and it's not working.

Re-read my last post. When Peter declared that Jesus was the Messiah in v36 those who God regenerated understood what was offered.

There's nothing there about a subset here:

Acts 2

37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Who is "they"? It's the entire crowd that heard the apostles speaking in tongues. There is NOTHING here to suggest that only some heard or only some asked the question.

This does not follow: It is just as legitimate to interpret the passage this way: The subset of the audience that was baptized were the same ones who asked the question. That is, all those hearers whose desires had been changed and are represented in v37 were the ones baptized.

Again, incorrect. The wording is different in each section. In verse 37, there is simply "they", referring to the same group who were present and heard the disciples speaking in tongues. However, in verse 41:

Acts 2

41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Now we have a qualifier. After the question has been asked and answered. "They" (those present) heard, and asked, but only "those who received" believed. This is consistent with both Luke and the other gospels when speaking about those who believed and those who did not.

PS - I'm honestly not that interested in this conversation anymore so I'll bow out now.

Because you've been exposed.... yeah, happens all the time with Calvinists.

[RBerman]

If monergism has been watered down to the point that it just means that God enables someone to believe, then it means practically nothing. However, your attempt to separate out the bolded section from monergism, and then somehow claim that there is a voluntary but universal response of repentance exposes the intellectual; dishonestly, here. You see, if the repentance is universal, then it isn't voluntary. It's like saying that a computer program was put into a robot to pick blue cups, but every robot it is put into voluntarily picks blue cups. It doesn't work that way. It is clear from any Calvinist perspective that the individual who is regenerated is also made to repent. They have no free will over that decision whatsoever.

You habitually frame your comments in a way unacceptable to Calvinists, which is why these discussions go round and round until people drop out from fatigue and boredom. The robot analogy is unsupportable. It is not the case that "if repentance is universal, then it isn't voluntary." "Universal" is about who repents (everyone who is regenerated). "Voluntary" is about how they repent (freely). When people choose according to their strongest desire, they are exercising their free will, even if they universally make the same choice.

[themuzicman]

You habitually frame your comments in a way unacceptable to Calvinists, which is why these discussions go round and round until people drop out from fatigue and boredom. The robot analogy is unsupportable. It is not the case that "if repentance is universal, then it isn't voluntary." "Universal" is about who repents (everyone who is regenerated). "Voluntary" is about how they repent (freely). When people choose according to their strongest desire, they are exercising their free will, even if they universally make the same choice.

And you've just confirmed my robot theory. Just subsitute "desire" for "programming", and it's spot on. Your monergistic regeneration isn't merely enabling, but also places an irresistible desire in the individual. Just like programming in a robot. It isn't free and isn't freely chosen.

[RBerman]

And you've just confirmed my robot theory. Just subsitute "desire" for "programming", and it's spot on. Your monergistic regeneration isn't merely enabling, but also places an irresistible desire in the individual. Just like programming in a robot. It isn't free and isn't freely chosen.

Nope; robots have no self-awareness and no desires.

[DaveKicks]

Because you've been exposed.... yeah, happens all the time with Calvinists.

It's this attitude, not your arguments, that I like to avoid. Honestly, in one breath you call me a synergist - which would agree with you. In the next, you tell me that I'm a hyper-calvinist even though I think repentance is volitional.

Pick one.

So no, I'm not bowing out because I've been "exposed." I'm bowing out because you've exposed your desire to have an argument at the cost of contradicting yourself.

Thanks but no thanks.

[themuzicman]

Nope; robots have no self-awareness and no desires.

Self-awareness is irrelevant when decisions are deetermined by programming. The fact that we are aware of what our programming is telling us to do doesn't change anything.

And Robots CAN have desires. I can give a robot a desire to turn over red cups by programming it to detect red cups and turn them over.

[themuzicman]

It's this attitude, not your arguments, that I like to avoid. Honestly, in one breath you call me a synergist - which would agree with you. In the next, you tell me that I'm a hyper-calvinist even though I think repentance is volitional.

Pick one.

So no, I'm not bowing out because I've been "exposed." I'm bowing out because you've exposed your desire to have an argument at the cost of contradicting yourself.

Thanks but no thanks.

Funny how you pick out your own inconsistencies and somehow I'm cointradictin mysef in pointing them out to you.

(If you'll notice, you did embrace synergism at one point, as pointed out, and you did bring up hyper-Calvinism, which you were trying to avoid.)

[RBerman]

Self-awareness is irrelevant when decisions are determined by programming. The fact that we are aware of what our programming is telling us to do doesn't change anything. And Robots CAN have desires. I can give a robot a desire to turn over red cups by programming it to detect red cups and turn them over.

No, you don't give it desires. You give it programming.

[Phat8594]

No, you don't give it desires. You give it programming.

I think what Muz is saying RB, is that when you make a persons actions to be determined by the desires, which in turn is determined by their nature, which in turn is determined by God...

it doesn't seem to mean much more than

a computers actions are determined by the algorithms in place, which in turn are determined by the programming, which in turn is determined by the programmer.

In other words, although a computer has the physical and internal components to give it all the so called "faculties" to have the "ability" to do something (lets say run a complex computing program), it will necessarily never do so if the programming isn't installed in the first place.

Desire (the algorithm), it seems (to us in the non-calvinist camp), is nothing more than a linear step in the process set up by God (the programmer).

So although I know you disavow computer analogies, it is hard for us in the non-calvinist camp to see a difference from a person and a robot (in terms of abilities and actions) when viewed through the calvinist perspective.

And perhaps that is because of a mental glitch in our heads....or perhaps we just don't have the natural ability to understand a difference where it matters on this subject.

Or perhaps, the calvinist is missing something or not quite explaining himself well enough.

The point being, is that when desire determines the action, etc. it is hard for us in the non-calvinist camp to see how a person is much different than a computer (in what matters). There seems to be no ability of self-determination. Which seems (at least to me) to make all the difference when sin is brought into the picture.


PS I havent forgot about the other thread, just haven't had time to get to it yet.

[RBerman]

Yes, Phat. I am familiar with Muz's use of the robot metaphor. He invariably brings it up in discussions of God's sovereignty, and so I feel obliged to repeatedly remind him that Calvinists do not consider the computer/robot metaphor to be a valid Biblical argument. (I have mentioned the same to you on at least one occasion.) But he feels compelled to entrench in it irrespective of its Biblical basis, because without it, his Open Theism view is in trouble.

[themuzicman]

Yes, Phat. I am familiar with Muz's use of the robot metaphor. He invariably brings it up in discussions of God's sovereignty, and so I feel obliged to repeatedly remind him that Calvinists do not consider the computer/robot metaphor to be a valid Biblical argument. (I have mentioned the same to you on at least one occasion.) But he feels compelled to entrench in it irrespective of its Biblical basis, because without it, his Open Theism view is in trouble.

I would agree that it isn't biblical, which is evidence for why Calvinism isn't biblical. It is, however, an accurate analogy for Calvinist's view of "compatiblist free will."

[themuzicman]

No, you don't give it desires. You give it programming.

Same thing. In Calvinism, the "stongest desire" is derived from the programming that is the nature, and determines the choice, just as a robot's choice comes from it's programming, and determines its choice. The analogy can't get much more aligned tht that.

[RBerman]

Same thing. In Calvinism, the "stongest desire" is derived from the programming that is the nature, and determines the choice, just as a robot's choice comes from it's programming, and determines its choice. The analogy can't get much more aligned that that.

No, not the same thing. People are not computers, Muz.