Talk:Monergism

NPOV?

I would just like to say that I suspect that this article is struggling with NPOV. I shan't edit it just yet, as I need some time to puzzle out exactly how it should be revised, but an article that effectively says "The Catholic Church is this way, but it's not, oh yes it is" is really not displaying NPOV. Let's try a bit harder, shall we? Zerobot 03:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the original insertion of said statement needs to be placed under its own heading. I was reluctant to remove it but could not let it stand on its own as it was incorrect. It certainly should not be in the definition. Do you have any ideas as to how it should be extracted from the definition? Should it stay in the article at all? I did not want to outright remove it because someone thought it important enough to include initially. Will the inclusion of the statement necessitate that there be a section for all major Christian denominations (Or other major religions for that matter,) including their stance for or against the subject? Meng.benjamin 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other places as well that are not displaying a neutral point of view. I quote the "Opposition to Monergism" section: "While Augustine presented a series of rebuttals against the teachings of Pelagianism beginning in AD 411, this question has never been answered properly." That is a statement highly disputed by proponents of monergism. Further down it says that the gospels clearly teach synergism (a claim that proponents of monergism would also deny) and that the epistles clearly teach monergism (a claim that opponents of monergism would deny). It seems that it would be more neutral to make statements like "Despite rebuttals by Augustine, among others, this issue is still widely contested." Further down it should say something like "opponents of monergism often cite the gospels which they claim supports their position, while proponents typically cite Paul's epistles in order to support their position as being the Biblical one." In either case, the author certainly shouldn't state things as being fact or as being "clear" when there is widespread disagreement on the issue.

Synergism is the position of the Catholic Church. This statement is NPOV. Sometimes things just happen to be one way, and not the other, whether one likes it or not. This situation is one of them.--Epiphyllumlover 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure and POV

Maybe a change in the structure would help the POV issue. Now, I’m not saying this research is completed or anything like that…heck this can just as easily be someone’s doctoral thesis but here you go:

Define Monergism in general--not leading with Christian Monergism
Philosophical/Historical development of Monergism
Religion and Monergism
Judaism and Monergism
-Historical View
-Modern View
Christianity and Monergism
-Reformed
--Historical
--Modern
Islam and Monergism
--Historical
--Modern

---r- 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

In an effort to make the article more neutral, I made the "Opposition to Monergism" from the voice of "Syngergist." The opposition section containing rebuttals by the Monergist view counters neutrality and gives a biased argument.--Francis419jn655 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Synergism

Where's there a page on synergism? You would think we need one - and the link to "synergy" is definitely the wrong thing to do, and if we can't make a page on synergism, it should be unlinked right away - anyone who clicks it expects to go to a page on the theology, and making it go to a page on "synergy" is dead inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.58.109 (talk • contribs)

Done. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be undone to me... 66.220.212.193 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) oops... I wassn't logged in... now I am.Wcbpolish (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Syneregists believe that monergism can inevitably leads to fatalism. "

They do? I would have thought that perhaps they believed that monergism SHOULD lead to fatilism. It would be hard to take seriously anyone who believes monergism DOES lead to fatilism, since historically the opposite seems to have been true.218.214.18.240 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Various edits and neutral POV

This page has been idle for a while so I've just edited it a bit. Removed unsourced comments that strike me as unsubstantiated. Specifically, the claim that most synergists are liberal Protestants is not accurate. Also the claim that most synergists reject the solas is not accurate. Those were removed, and I've made some edits on all the sections.

I believe the POV is now pretty well neutral, though this article could still use a bit of expansion. If anyone still feels there is a POV problem feel free to add back the tag.

Columcille (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Monergism - Theology of Prayer

The article is currently silent on monergism's view on prayer. Adding a good section on prayer would enhance the article. In prayer to Almighty God, petitioner's never earn answers to their prayers but Almighty God may sovereignly choose to hear their pleadings and petitions and to show mercy and to grant their requests. A sincere prayer of "Lord, have mercy" is a prayer that Christ commended from a sinner who subsequently was justified. (Luke 18:13) 75.220.216.203 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical edit

This sentence needs revision: "There is also a distinguishing between the truth being revealed and being accepted the truth (see the next section for more details)." I'm no expert, but my gut feel is that the author intended to write "There is also a distinguishing between the truth being revealed and being accepted AS the truth (see the next section for more details)." But it also makes sense to say "There is also a distinguishing between the truth being revealed and the truth being accepted (see the next section for more details)." Based on the reference to the "next section," I'd recommend the latter option, because it seems to reflect the discourse in the section on Opposition more closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.6.37 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with monoenergism" hatnote

While it's true that monergism and monoenergism aren't exactly the same thing, it's not true that they are unrelated. One common criticism of monergism is that it's formally equivalent to monoenergism, monothelitism, or both. See for example this article. There's evidence to support this position, too (including the fact that historically, the theologians most closely associated with monergism have also tended to make monothelite-sounding statements, and vice versa). Perhaps it'd be worth putting a clarification in the article saying that while the two concepts are not the same, they have been considered to be related (or even equivalent) by some commentators? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)