I'll comment on this post:
As some of you who have been my long-time readers know, Austin Fischer is my protégé even though I can’t take credit for his intelligence or writing skills. He’s a brilliant thinker, teaching pastor (The Vista Community Church, Temple, Texas) and excellent writer.
It's fine with me if Arminians make Fischer their spokesman.
“Monergism: Maybe True, Definitely Unnecessary”
by Austin Fischer (Author of Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed)
Monergism (“one work”) is the belief that God works alone in salvation.
No, that's not what it means. Some (but not all) divine actions in salvation involve God's unilateral action, viz. unconditional election, monergistic regeneration.
It’s usually set against synergism, which is the belief that while God alone does everything in working for our salvation,
What does it even mean to say "God alone does everything in working for our salvation" in contrast to synergism?
Seems like Fischer want to hang on to a sola element, but combine that with a non-sola element. So he simply glues them together.
humans must cooperate with grace in some form or fashion (the cooperation itself, of course, is possible only because of grace).
Calvinism doesn't deny that salvation has cooperative facets. For instance, sanctification has a cooperative dynamic in Calvinism.
However, the "cooperation" of the regenerate in their sanctification is the predestined effect of God's efficacious grace. It's not "cooperative" in the libertarian sense.
But what I would like to point out is that you don’t need monergism to prevent human boasting or protect God’s glory. Nope—all you need is a healthy doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)…or better yet, creatio continua (continuing creation).
Continuous creation denies human agency. There is no cause and effect connection within the world. Rather, it's a version of occasionalism where God is the sole agent. Human beings don't make anything happen. The future is entirely the result of God's direct fiat. There are no second causes. Just God's primary causality, through-and-through.
So Fischer's Arminian alternative to Calvinism is to replace Calvinism with a metaphysical position that denies human agency!
Fischer's post is incompetent from start to finish. He doesn't begin to know what he's talking about. His analysis is inept and counterproductive even on Arminian grounds.
This is a good example of how Arminian partisanship suspends critical judgment. They don't listen for content–they just listen for the label. If you call it "Arminian," it must be right; if you call it "Calvinist," it must be wrong.
It's like those man-on-the-street interviews where a reporter will ask Democrats what they think of a statement. The reporter will quote a statement which he attributes to a Democrat, even though it's actually a statement made by a Republican. Democrats respondents immediately agree with the statement, because they were told a Democrat said it. They stop listening after they hear the partisan label.