Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 1

This is a rather simplistic and inaccurate presentation of Synergism.

Those who believe in Synergism do not say that "salvation is from ourselves." We understand that no one can conjure up faith out of nothing but instead the sinner must first hear the gospel which brings life:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 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? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Ro.10:13-15).

Not only are the facts of Synergism being misrepresented but to equate Synergism to "universal heathenism" is nothing but a hatchet job. This is the same type of thing we have already seen on another thread where a very prominent proponent of Calvinism calls dispensationalism a cult because some in the dispensational community do not agree on every issue concerning a sinner's salvation.

You cling to the ridiculous idea that it is through the MEANS of the proclaimed gospel that the sinner receives life even though logically that sinner receives life BEFORE he even believes that gospel.

Your idea is contradicted by the Scriptures that state in no uncertain terms that it is a result of "believing" that one receives life:

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

Regeneration (passing from spiritual death unto spiritual life) does not precede faith but instead it is the result of faith.

I can hardly wait!

While you are at it please deal with the following verses which are also speaking of "regeneration":

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved), And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:5-6).

According to your ideas the sinner is regenerated "together with Christ" and "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"--all this, logocally, before the sinner has believed!

However, it is inconceivable that it would be said that anyone was risen with Him and is sitting together with Him in heavenly places before they had their sins forgiven. The following verses make it plain that the forgiveness of sins goes hand and hand with being regenerated "together with Him":

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).

The forgiveness of sins and being regenerated together with Him is a result of "faith":

"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:43; NIV).

You have the regeneration "together with Him" and the forgiveness of sins happening logically before one believes. But that idea is contradicted by the Scriptures.

John,

I read your article in full and like the earlier one concerning your Lazarus theory of regeneration before faith, this one had many citations/quotes, hence its continuity was strained quite a bit. It may serve you better, as a writer, to formulate much of your quoted material with your own thoughts and style, thereby making for greater continuity and readability.

But to the article, I do disagree with and reject the premise upon which it is based as well as the definitions it uses. I do not believe that there is only one of two possibilities regarding our identifying and defining the elements and agents involved in the process of one believing the gospel and being regenerated. And I particularly do so with regard to your article where you state in quoting Hendryx:

While some might assert that faith is autonomous and independent of God's action of grace, there are others that, while rejecting this view also reject your narrow definition of monergism, while defining faith as an action of God's grace. This is outside of your consideration.

And one of the critical mistakes you make that show a lack of proper discrimination in your argument is is where you treat "merit or work for salvation" as synonymous with "the exercise of faith that might or might not involve the human will" and this is most evident in your follow up quote of Hendryx:

The exercise of faith, whether it be in the context of your synergistic definition or monergistic definition, is not viewed as a meritorious exercise in either case. So regardless of this element, (the exercise of faith) it is not considered by either party as a meritorious contribution to the "price" of salvation. But I am not here to argue that particular case or for synergism in general, rather to point out the flaw of your argument, particularly the failure of it to address all views and its demand that all views, which cannot be done theologically, be placed in either/or.

Thanks for your response. I can understand the "yes" part of your "yes and no" answer, given the quotations you posted, but I'm not sure i understand the "no" part. Are you saying that we cannot semantically use the word "force" to describe God's condemnation of sinners even though we can use it in regards to God's regeneration of sinners?

Here is my reasoning behind my semantic type questions. in my study of sin, I basically agree with the monergistic position, that mankind is dead in sin and cannot respond to God. Yet in the evangelization classes I have taken, there seems to have been more of a synergistic framework, and I am trying to reason things out here. For example, in evangelization classes, one of the steps is often refered to as "calling for a decision," yet is the word "decision" a semantically correct way to describe man's response to the gospel, if in the monergistic framework, man is inherently unable to respond to the gospel?

Also, does a monergist believe in the "age of accountability" in regards to the evangelization of children? I have always understood the age of accountability to be the age at which a child is able to understand the Gospel, and before that age, the child would not be accountable for their sins since they could not understand how their sins can be dealt with. If the monergistic position is that no one, at any age, can understand the Gospel without God's "force," then there really wouldn't be a minimum or maximum age of accountability, right? Since everyone is accountable unless God's "force" works in them.
Is there any Scriptural reason why God could not regenerate a one-year-old, since regeneration in entirely God's work and has nothing to do with man's ability to respond?

I view this as unrepresentative of my position as a one whose Particular Baptist DNA runs through Andrew Fuller. By the by, have you read Fuller or the New Hampshire Baptist Confession?

Your problem is by not reading the New Hampshire Confession (found in Hiscox's New Directory for Baptist Churches) and Andrew Fuller's The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, you have not read some of the seminal documents upon which many here base their presuppositions knowingly or unknowingly. Fuller's work alone was the basis for the work of William Carey, Charles Spurgeon and Francis Wayland.

John, is it your position that synergism = semipelagianism?

Thanks for the response.

Cont...

***Side comment***

Do you understand the differences between the Catholic/Lutheran teaching that 'regeneration occurs in infant baptism and the "washing of regeneration" eliminates the effects of 'original sin', and the Reformed view of regeneration? Did you know that there is a longstanding debate between the followers of Luther and Calvin, and that Lutherans charge the Calvinists of being "synergistic"!

It's all pretty petty. It is all caused by a lack of understanding of the Truths of Scripture!

*** ***

REALLY "PROGRESSIVE REVELATION"

OK - So we have a timeline: There was the OT with its series of prophets, then God appeared in flesh, established the Church and gave the Spirit of Truth to lead men into all truth, then the Bible is completed. An then, nearly 300 years later, Augustine reveals the 'doctrine of original sin' and much later (nearly 1200 years) the doctrine of Total Inability is uncovered.

Is this a case of "progressive revelation" ?!! Men are not aware of the finer points of the impact of Adam's sin and what God really does in regenration until about 1600 AD?

*** ***

This has been a little tongue-in-cheek. To really evaluate your charges of synergism against those who believe that faith precedes regeneration, I would ask you to clarify and commit yourself as you answer two questions (Okay, 4 questions, but two of them are yes or no answers) .

1. What is the work of God in regeneration? (What does God do to a man when He regenerates him? List as many of the different facets as you can think of.)

2. In Acts 16, the Philippean jailor asks, "What must I do to be saved". Paul responds, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:30-31)
2A. Is the jailor expressing a desire to be saved, and was the jailor already regenerated when he asked this question?
2B. Did the jailor have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ before he would be saved?
2C. Was the jailor's expression of faith synergistic-- did he contribute to his salvation by exercising faith before he was saved?

It seems than that a sinner is saved apart from and before he exercises faith?

Since faith is seen as equivalent to being a work if it is something that man does, the act of God's regenerating would assume the inclusion of His bestowal of faith at that same moment. As such, the famous Eph verse would more accurately reflect what occurs in salvation if ir were rendered something like, "For by God's grace are you saved through His regenerating force and not by faith, lest there be the opening for human boasting."

At least, to me, this is what seems to me to be suggested.

By the way, breathing into a corpse is not forcing life into a person. A dead person, as such, can neither accept or resist; it is an act performed upon the subject that is neither in accord with or against the will. Essentially, there is no will in a corpse, therefore, there is no willingness or resistance. The act may be a force but it is not forcing. To use the analogy with reference to a literal corpse is not what Ephesians 2 is referring, therefore, the analogy is misused and fails terribly. The bus analogy may be better.

At least, this is how I understand my reading of the Bible.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion.