PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I may get my hide jumped, but I thought Tambora was just a bit off on understanding the Reformed definition of Monergism as it pertains to justification, and not so much in describing the Unity of the Trinity.
I myself have said, working together, and Persons.
I love the Athanasian Creed for this very purpose, to clarify as closely as possible the relationship of the Godhead with one another.
Here's the thing... Monergism versus Synergism cannot be applied internally to the Immanent Trinity (in contrast to the Economic Trinity). Synergism, as it is utilized in theology is a CONTINGENT relation between God and man. One of God's incommunicable attributes is Necessity, which is NON-Contingency. And to presume Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are contingent "parts" of God (despite the additional fact that "substance" in the English definition for synergy would be "ousia" rather than "hypostasis"), then it denies His incommunicable attribute of Simplicity.
If Neccessity and Simplicity are tossed out, then Eternity and Infinity and Immensity and all the others have to go away, too. This leaves us with no God of the Christian faith.
The internal co-inherence and circumincession and interpenetration of Father, Son, and Holy is perichoresis. This is what is being thrown under the bus, along with the cascade of EVERY incommunicable attribute of God.
And all for the sake of her not admitting she's wrong, and making up a transferance of Synergism to be projected upon God Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And the kicker is... This STILL doesn't address the relation of God and man, and instead makes God even MORE Monergistic relative to Election and Salvation.
So Tamobra has destroyed every incommunicable attribute of God while taking a Hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-hyper-Calvinist position. And all without having a clue.
This is an unparalleled heinous theological error beyond anything I've encountered or could imagine.