Synergism vs. Monergism (Part 3)
History testifies that a synergistic viewpoint of scripture originated from the Roman Catholic Church. History also testifies that monergism was one of the five solas that the reformation protested in 1517. God alone! That is one of the 5 that the protesters of the Roman Catholic protested against and from this protest, the true Church came out of the pagan teachings of the Roman Catholic church and her heresies.
How is all of this important and how does this affect modern day Protestantism? Modern day Protestantism has incorporated synergism into their theology. While they reject the Catholic doctrines and embrace the Five Solas of the Reformation, synergism has redefined the meanings that were not intended by those that started the reformation. With a new meaning, scripture takes a different path because the looking glass that one reads scripture is defined by one’s theology.
How do monergists and synergists read scripture differently? In a nutshell, monergists see God as the sole initiator of bringing a person to salvation whereas a synergist sees man acting in cooperation with God in salvation. Man’s ability to act or respond was popularized by John Wesley in his doctrine of pervenient grace. While both monergists and synergists are in agreement with scripture that man is totally depraved, pervenient grace teaches that after the fall, God restored man’s ability to at least be able respond to His grace. This is taught that His common grace or pervenient grace is extended to all mankind. If man does respond, then it continues in justifying grace and is brought to fruition in sanctifying grace. In other words, pervenient grace is that which God gave to all mankind.
Pervenient grace teaches that God’s grace is undeserved, unmerited, and the loving action of God. It precedes salvation as “pervenient grace,” continues in “justifying grace,” and is brought to fruition in “sanctifying grace.” It is understood to mean a “preparing grace” from God to all mankind which enables man to properly respond to the truth of the Gospel. It is defined as “that grace which ‘goes before’ or prepares the soul for entrance into the initial state of salvation” and is the “preparatory grace of the Holy Spirit exercised toward man’s helplessness in sin. As it respects the impotent, it is enabling power. It may be defined, therefore, as that manifestation of the divine influence which precedes the full regenerate life” (Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago:Moody Press, 1989, 496 quoting Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:346).
Repentance comes after prevenient grace. Wesley states , “Salvation is carried on by convincing grace, usually in Scripture termed repentance; which brings a larger measure of self knowledge, and a farther deliverance from the heart of stone” (Wesley, Sermons, LXXXV. 509).
Note that the ‘grace’ that comes after the prevenient grace is called the “convincing grace.” It is taught that it is this grace where God finally effects salvation on those who rightly respond. In other words, synergism teaches that God has granted all mankind an ability that overrides, at least to a degree, a depraved and dead state so that man can respond to the Gospel. This reconciles the contradictory aspects of death in Adam and man’s freedom to choose. It is taught that there are actually two works of grace in man’s salvation – one is to restore man’s ability to choose salvation (pervenient grace) and the other which saves a man.
Pervenient grace is not taught in the bible. Pervenient grace is also known by this theology as common grace. Common grace is found in scripture but it does not speak to man’s ability to choose God. Arminius taught that man was not considered guilty because of Adam’s sin but that people voluntarily chose to sin even though they had the power to live righteously. It is at a person’s first sin that God imputes sin and counts them guilty. However, God bestows upon each individual from the beginnings of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit which is sufficient to counteract the effect of the inherited depravity that scriptures speaks to but the human ‘will’ must cooperate. Arminius was cognizant the effect of Adam’s sin and resulting death but believed that man could still make righteous choices. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, 312.
However, common grace as taught in scripture deals with God’s grace that is towards all mankind whether or not one is a Christian. It has nothing to do with granting man an ability to choose God. God extends grace to all of mankind throughout all ages and all conditions. This is the grace that brings about the seasons, the rains, the revelation of God within nature. It is extended to all of mankind “The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.” (Psa 145:9) “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Mat 5:45 )
Monergist theology teaches that man is in Adam and has inherited his nature. This can be seen in throughout scripture. For instance, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Co 15:21-22 ). Also, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Eph 2:1-3)
How do these two views affect how we read scripture. Synergists believe that man has an ability on his own motion to seek God. Therefore, a different view is taken on scriptures such as predestination and who are the elect. Monergism teaches that unless God seeks an individual, no one will seek Him. God must regenerate a person so that they have an ability to respond to Him.
The effects of how scripture is read by the two camps will be concluded in Part 4!
_____________________
Fruit of the Word Articles by Zemanta
- Synergism vs. Monergism (Part 1)
- Spiritual Authority versus Natural Authority
- Cooperate or Yield to God
- God’s Sovereign Will vs. Permissive Will
- Free-Will vs. Free-Choice
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=ff0a0a80-7a92-4062-9f31-15a12f2f04de)
Related posts:
Interesting post.
How closley related is synergistism with pelagianism?
It’s somewhat related. I didn’t bother dealing with pelagianism since most people falling into either synergism or monergism. Most pelagianists are univeralists, etc.
History testifies that a synergistic viewpoint of scripture originated from the Roman Catholic Church.
This claim is entirely false. All of the Ante-Nicene church fathers were synergists (long before there was anything even close to a Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the earliest Christian writers were all synergists). Strict monergism began with Augustine (though he began as a synergist and strictly defended a libertarian view of free will before falling back on his Manichaean convictions while embroiled in controversy with the Pelagians), and didn’t gain a foothold in the church until after John Calvin systematized and modified Augustine’s later theological view points.
God Bless,
Ben
Hi Ben, I know what you are referring to. For instance Justin Martyr stated that God’s foreknowledge is intuitive and not active and is caused by man’s choices. Obviously, that cannot be remotely supported by scripture. In any event, I would like to respond but I am very much limited in time and will respond tonight or tomorrow.
To be honest, I had forgotten about this little study series of mine and turns out I never finished no. 4. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, albeit unintentionally
Blessings to you,
tishrei,
I wasn’t really speaking about foreknowledge, but the universal early church belief in free will (in a libertarian sense) and synergism.
God Bless,
Ben
Quickly, as I don’t have much time what I’m talking about (though it’s not obvious that I did not word it properly so I may edit it), is that while certain things may have been believed, they were not made official until a certain time later. For instance, no one really, really got it regarding the trinity. It was not until later that the trinity was defined as one God, three persons. As to the Roman Catholic church, they really did not become official until much later. Yet, it was out of their teachings that it became official.
The Jews understood God choosing for they were the chosen people out of all the nations. That was part of their history, their makeup and thought process. Though they did much of the same things as the pagans did such as burning their children to a pagan god, they remained His. He certainly punished them but He did not destory them like He did the pagan nations for their sin.
Very quickly after Christ rose, the Gospel started making its way to the nations (greek) who had a very different thought process. We even see that today, western thinking applied to scripture. For instance, the ‘bind and loose’ scripture that people take to mean binding satan and taking authority over him has no basis. It’s a Hebrew phrase that was in use and can be found in the Talmud before Jesus’ time on earth. It simply means declare lawful or unlawful. It’s not a literal saying much like ‘the boy who cried wolf’ is not a literal saying.