Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 1

[Jack Hampton]…the gospel which brings life

In this article, I will attempt to define and illustrate each view; in a subsequent article, I will look at the Apostle John’s affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the topic; in a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.

[Kevin Miller] Would a monergist be comfortable with a statement like this:

God forces salvation upon people.

A graphic understood by many Baptists regarding predestination is illustrated by this. A mass of people are gathered at a bus stop marked “Planet Earth.” Along comes the Celestial Bus marked “Destination Heaven.” It pulls up and stops. The driver, who is God, opens the door, and says, “All destined for heaven get on board.” A number do. A missionary couple who with zeal have served Christ all their lives start on and God says, “Step aside. You haven’t been chosen to ride this bus.” A couple of infants start on and God tells them to step aside. Persons who from youth have loved and ministered in Christ’s name are told to step aside. As the bus is about to depart and the door is closing God says to those not on board, “Catch the next bus.” “No,” they plead, “here comes the next bus and it is driven by Satan and marked ‘Destination Hell.’”

“Sorry,” says God. “I didn’t choose to save you. Your love and commitment to Jesus doesn’t matter.”

Article 12: Regeneration a Supernatural Work

And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

Who teach that the grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or(as others explain it) that the way of God’s acting in man’s conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God’s work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.

For this teaching is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture, which recognizes besides this persuasion also another, far more effective and divine way in which the Holy Spirit acts in man’s conversion. As Ezekiel 36:26 puts it: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; and I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh….

[Alex Guggenheim] 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.

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.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?

A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

I have replied to Kevin’s questions in the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith thread.

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?

their presuppositions knowingly or unknowingly

[James K] John, is it your position that synergism = semipelagianism?

The Pelagian sees the difference strictly in the power of the human will, unassailable and unassisted. Pelagianism has no room for original sin and constitutes a complete denial of divine grace. Pelagianism is in effect a system of self-perfection.

The semi-Pelagian acknowledges human moral imperfection, but insists that the first movement toward God must come from the sinner in his own strength. If that effort is sincere, God will assist with cooperating grace. This is a genuine synergism. It is an abridgment of grace. This position does seem to be articulated by some Fundamentalists.

Traditional Arminians, however, fit neither of the above descriptions. They believe that the human will is completely disabled and that humans are dead in trespasses and sins. No human is capable of spontaneously originating any positive choice toward God. To such persons, God, as part of prevenient grace, provides sufficient ability to make an initial moral response to Him. Those who do make this response find that God responds with complete saving grace.

Traditional Lutherans take a slightly different approach. For them, no humans are capable of cooperating with the common grace of God before they are regenerated, but they are capable of resisting it. Those who do not resist are the ones who will believe.

All of these are non-Calvinistic positions. The first two are abridgments or denials of the gospel itself. Even if the latter two are erroneous, however, it is unfair to categorize them as either semi-Pelagian or as synergistic. In traditional Arminianism, traditional Lutheranism, and traditional Calvinism, salvation comes wholly from God. No saints in any of these traditions would claim any credit for their own salvation.

I appreciate the distinction Dr Bauder makes between the Arminian and the non-calvinist/non-arminian/biblicist. The Calvinist and Arminian both view depravity in the same way, but diverge on the prevenient grace issue. Where we “militant calvinists” (to use Bob T’s term) see the arminian as being synergistic, he is not synergistic to the same degree and kind as the “non” guys. I have a greater appreciation and respect for the arminian position than I do for the “non” position, as the latter has no way to account for spiritually dead persons making choices that are pleasing to God. In my article I refer to that position as the “mostly dead” view of depravity. Sadly, much of what passes for evangelism is based on the view that man is mostly dead and is just holding out for the old ship of zion to pass by and for someone to throw him a life vest before he sinks below the waves.

Take #1, above. “God does everything”. What does that mean? What is the meaning of “does” and “everything”. When a person believes on Christ, for example, does God breath for that person, thus sustaining his biological life and enabling him to stay alive so that he may, indeed, believe? Does God choose for him to consume the necessary nutrients so that he may sustain life and enable him to hear the gospel and believe? Does God do the listening to or hearing of the gospel for this person without the self, being involved in any manner? Does God do the formulating of questions in the mind of the person yet believing in the process of his inquiry, whether it be one hour or ten years without this person’s being, having any involvement? These may seem irrelevant but they are not when you use this inclusive term.

One week night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all and that He was the Author of my faith—and so the whole doctrine of Grace opened up to me and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”

[Alex] If you mean by everything only to have in view the everything of a certain category, then you must, in very specific detail, explain this exclusive category and what does and does not qualify. What is the everything you have in view and how do you justify excluding other things that are present when one believes such as their respiratory functions that they are choosing to continue with that are necessary to keep them alive in order to believe and be saved?

[Jack Hampton] And not even one Calvinist even attempt to refute what I said. Why don’t you be the first?

[Rob Fall] Though, Fuller was a Particular Baptist hence Calvinist Baptist. I dare say you’d probably put him in the synergist column. FWIW, Spurgeon was a Fullerite. Among the Baptists, the only American grouping which is throughly monergistic (or Gillite) is the Primitive Baptists. Mind you this split occurred before 1830.

[Rob Fall] The he’d be considered an Evangelical monergist. As for Dr. Rice, it’s worth keeping in mind much of the the Calvinism he was seeking to refute was that typified by the Primitive Baptists.

Those who do believe a doctrine of God’s limited love, limited grace, limited atonement, and unchangeable plan to damn millions who could not be saved, are called hyper-Calvinists.

…is never amazed at the mental gymnastics that hyper-cavinists will use to prove the ‘doctrine’ of limited atonement. BTW, did you ever notice that those spewing the doctrine of hyper-calvinism consider themselves to be part of the elect along with their kids and grandkids….Let’s go out and share the gospel!!!

[Jack Hampton in post 2] Those who believe in Synergism do not say that “salvation is from ourselves.”

[Alex Guggenheim in post 8] 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.

[Bob T. in post 14 ] faith is not a work

[Jack Hampton in post 35] A man’s mind is not blind to the truths of the gospel. I also believe that since the gospel comes in the Holy Spirit then it is of sufficient power to shine its light so that all men can indeed see its truth. No special grace is needed.

Calvin’s total depravity teaching did not properly represent the condition of unsaved men, When the Bible describes the sinful condition of man, there is no question that he is depraved and totally so. Man is not inherently good; he is by nature a sinner.

But man’s total depravity must not be defined as total inability. The fact is that God has made arrangements for our salvation, and He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9)

Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another? Does one make better use of God’s grace?