# Monergism and Primitive Baptists



## Herald (Jan 23, 2020)

Is it an accurate statement that Monergism is the theological framework on which Calvinism is constructed? I am using both terms in a soteriological sense. Often we have debates where Calvinism and Arminianism are two opposing theologies. I know a few Primitive Baptists who don't identify as Calvinists although they embrace TULIP. They reject the necessity of the Gospel as the means of salvation They believe the elect - past, present, and future - were all regenerated by the sovereign decree of God. They reject justification by faith as we know it. However, they affirm a monergistic soteriology. So, my real question is whether the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is really Monergism vs. Synergism? I'm not trying to redefine the historical nature of the debate; I'm just want to discuss the theology behind the terms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

These people sound like hyper-Calvinists and so are not really relevant to the debate between orthodox Calvinism and Arminianism, as they are highly aberrant themselves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Herald said:


> They reject justification by faith as we know it. However, they affirm a monergistic soteriology.


I don't see how this is truly possible. Regeneration causes recognition to the need for reconciliation and the need for faith in the person and work of Christ. If the need for reconciliation resulting from faith in the person and work of Christ has not occurred then what has monergistically been done? That is what being born again produces.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2020)

Herald said:


> They reject justification by faith as we know it.



Is this the same issue that hyper-calvinists deal with: they believe in eternal justification, so faith means more just a recognition that we were justified in eternity past?


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 23, 2020)

I have a book on "Spurgeon vs the Hyper-Calvinist" by Ian Murray that's pretty much on this topic. I would say that it depends on what perspective you're looking at it. Faith is a gift from God but we excersise faith. God gives it to us but we trust in what Christ has done for us. Is it a paradox, yes but it's what we have.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Faith is a gift from God but we excersise faith. God gives it to us but we trust in what Christ has done for us. Is it a paradox, yes but it's what we have.


I am not so sure it is paradox at all. Just as a baby will breath after he exits the matrix so must we exercise faith in the person and work of Christ if we are going to live. It is a natural response to a supernatural awakening (or resurrection) that recognizes truth and what must be done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 23, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not so sure it is paradox at all. Just as a baby will breath after he exits the matrix so must we exercise faith in the person and work of Christ if we are going to live. It is a natural response to a supernatural awakening (or resurrection) that recognizes truth and what must be done.


Right but I meant paradox in the Vantillian sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Right but I meant paradox in the Vantillian sense.


That is a whole other mess and a confusion between archetypal and ectypal theology. But let's stay on topic.


----------



## Herald (Jan 23, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is this the same issue that hyper-calvinists deal with: they believe in eternal justification, so faith means more just a recognition that we were justified in eternity past?


Correct. That is what PB's believe.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2020)

Herald said:


> Correct. That is what PB's believe.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk



In that case they don't believe in faith alone in the way that we believe in faith alone. Bizarrely enough, we see someone who is monergistic but doesn't hold to faith alone.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 23, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is a whole other mess and a confusion between archetypal and ectypal theology. But let's stay on topic.


Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## Herald (Jan 24, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> These people sound like hyper-Calvinists and so are not really relevant to the debate between orthodox Calvinism and Arminianism, as they are highly aberrant themselves.



Daniel, I agree. Their belief in eternal justification is problematic. They eliminate the distinction between predestination and the effectual call. The Elect have are predestined from eternity but they are called in-time. I have dialogued with one PB about Ephesians 2 when Paul refers to the Ephesian believers and himself as children of wrath prior to conversion. Given that PB's are not known as an evangelistic community, it probably underscores their bent towards Hyper-Calvinism.


----------



## Herald (Jan 24, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't see how this is truly possible. Regeneration causes recognition to the need for reconciliation and the need for faith in the person and work of Christ. If the need for reconciliation resulting from faith in the person and work of Christ has not occurred then what has monergistically been done? That is what being born again produces.


Randy, this is the part that confuses me. If the PB's believe in eternal regeneration of the Elect, why even preach the Gospel? They believe an Elect person does not need to hear the Gospel. This is one of the reasons why they reject Calvinism.


----------



## KMK (Jan 24, 2020)

Bill, you might want to change the title of the thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2020)

Herald said:


> Randy, this is the part that confuses me. If the PB's believe in eternal regeneration of the Elect, why even preach the Gospel? They believe an Elect person does not need to hear the Gospel. This is one of the reasons why they reject Calvinism.


Yeah, that is messed up. We might as well just get rid of the Bible then. 

I have had some run ins with these guys back in the late 80's when I worked at a Christian bookstore. They even criticize people who verbally share the gospel and evangelize. Christians who do that were criticized for being a door knockers. It was sad. They were young and had no response for the following passage.


Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above 
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


----------



## Herald (Jan 24, 2020)

KMK said:


> Bill, you might want to change the title of the thread.


Yeah. Given how the thread has taken a left turn at Albuquerque.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 24, 2020)

Herald said:


> Is it an accurate statement that Monergism is the theological framework on which Calvinism is constructed? I am using both terms in a soteriological sense. Often we have debates where Calvinism and Arminianism are two opposing theologies. I know a few Primitive Baptists who don't identify as Calvinists although they embrace TULIP. They reject the necessity of the Gospel as the means of salvation They believe the elect - past, present, and future - were all regenerated by the sovereign decree of God. They reject justification by faith as we know it. However, they affirm a monergistic soteriology. So, my real question is whether the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is really Monergism vs. Synergism? I'm not trying to redefine the historical nature of the debate; I'm just want to discuss the theology behind the terms.


Our disagreement with the Arminians is about monergism vs synergism.

Our disagreement with the Primitive Baptists is about the ordo salutis and means of grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 3, 2020)

Herald said:


> Is it an accurate statement that Monergism is the theological framework on which Calvinism is constructed? I am using both terms in a soteriological sense. Often we have debates where Calvinism and Arminianism are two opposing theologies. I know a few Primitive Baptists who don't identify as Calvinists although they embrace TULIP. They reject the necessity of the Gospel as the means of salvation They believe the elect - past, present, and future - were all regenerated by the sovereign decree of God. They reject justification by faith as we know it. However, they affirm a monergistic soteriology. So, my real question is whether the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is really Monergism vs. Synergism? I'm not trying to redefine the historical nature of the debate; I'm just want to discuss the theology behind the terms.


The title of the thread is a little misleading, which I am sure is unintentional. But this, obviously, is not the view of all primitive Baptists. Of course, it depends on who you are referring to as well when you say Primitive Baptists. Terms get jumbled often as we all well know. 

But to the point, if you are talking bout Calvinism in solely soteriological terms, I would say yes, the debate is really Monergism vs. Synergism.


----------

