Which is where I started on this thread and which is what HarleyD cannot seem to grasp.
But if, Calvin (as I think he did but perhaps you do not) believed that God saves man against or without cooperation of his will, then Calvin was a monergist. It turns on whether Calvin meant "irresistible grace" in a deterministic way or a synergistic way.
I agree with you that almost no so-called Calvinists truly believe in monergism or deterministic irresistible grace. It may be true that Calvin himself did not. But that's what galls me when lay Calvinists like HarleyD bring out this "monergism"/"synergism" zero-sum gam, which I assume they have gotten from Horton or MacaArthur or someone else.
I don't really think HarleyD is a monergist. But he thinks he is and he thinks we Catholics are Pelagians in our synergy. His synergy might end up being very close to my synergy with both of us being far removed from Pelagian synergy. But he uses "monergy" to distinguish himself from me, the Synergist, and he claims Augustine was a monergist. Now mono-ergy ought to mean "one-ergy." Augustine manifestly does not believe in a single ergy. He believes in two and he is a synergist, a frightfully asymmetrical synergist and an opponent of Pelagius's different kind of synergy.
But HarleyD has reduced everything to "good Monergists" and "bad Synergists" without realizing that he himself believes in two, not one, ergys (unless he does believe in irresistible puppetry grace--I await his response). He started this business by labeling himself and Augustine Monergists. I endeavored to show him that Augustine believes in two, asymmetrical ergys.
If HarleyD is in fact a true, asymmetrical synergist, I will rejoice. But he thinks he's a monergist. If Calvin is truly an asymmetrical synergist, I will rejoice and agree with him. But some people have interpreted Calvin in a puppetry way. Those who do would rightly be called monergists. If Horton and MacArthur and HarleyD and you interpret Calvin in an asymmetrical synergist way, fine. But then those who throw the label "monergist" around really ought to drop it because they themselves, when confronted with the two ergys in their own thinking (as you just asserted in Calvin's thinking) admit they are synergists. So why should they be permitted to use "monergy" and "synergy" to beat those of us who truly admit we are asymmetrical synergists over the head?
I first responded on this thread because these labels monergy and synergy are the source of no end of confusion on this matter but they seem to be the dearly beloved terminology of a certain sort of anti-Catholic--those who falsely present Catholicism as Pelagian then proceed to knock it down. I'd be very happy to admit that we are all synergists, if we are. Then we could argue about exactly how the asymmetrical synergy works and how we, being asymmetricals, differ from Liberal Protestant Pelagian synergists.
You see, the problem is that "synergy" is being made to do more work than it can handle. It's being used to describe anyone who is not a monergist and, as it turns out, almost no one (perhaps not even Calvin) is a Monergist. But if we are all synergists, then we need to find better words to describe the oceans of distance between Synergist Pelagius and Synergist Augustine, between Synergist Dionsyiusdecordealcis and Synergist Pelagius.
HarleyD started out by lumping us Catholics into the Pelagian symmetrical synergy camp and grabbing our own Augustine and claiming him for his monergist camp. That messes up one's understanding of Augustine, of us Catholics, and perhaps even of Calvin. Of course, HarleyD won't admit he's a Calvinist--he is convinced that Calvinism is written right there in Scripture. You at least recognize that you read Scripture through a lens provided by Calvin. And, if you are correct about Calvin, you and Calvin end up not far from the very asymmetrical synergism that Trent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. teach. I'd be glad to welcome Calvin as a fellow synergist if you can explain that he did not mean "irresistible grace" in a deterministic way.
First, do you agree with the last statement of my post #73 concerning the definition of monergism: I don’t believe monergists deny that man has free will. What they deny is that the exercise of that free will is necessary for salvation from hell.