Can A Person Be a Monergist and a Synergist At the Same Time? Can One Be Neither?

[Arial]

This OP is in response to portion of another thread in which @Eternally-Grateful made the claim of being neither, while also claiming both in part but not in full. @ElectedbyHim gave the definitions in that thread, and I will post them here. Then I will quote EG's response. My purpose is to get clarity and give EG the opportunity to discuss it and defend his position here, as the topic of the other thread was "free will."
Monergism:

• The term "monergism" comes from the Greek words "monos" (alone) and "ergon" (work), essentially meaning "one work."
  
  
• In theology, monergism is the doctrine that God alone is the active agent in salvation, particularly in the regeneration (new birth) of an individual.
  
  
• This view posits that human beings, in their fallen state, are spiritually dead and incapable of initiating or contributing to their salvation.
• Monergists believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, sovereignly works in the hearts of the elect, granting them the gifts of faith and repentance, enabling them to willingly respond to the Gospel.
• Key theological traditions that strongly emphasize monergism include Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology (including many Anglicans).

Synergism:

• The term "synergism" originates from the Greek words "syn" (with) and "ergon" (work), meaning "working together" or "cooperation."
  
  
• In theology, synergism is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and humanity.
  
  
• This view asserts that while God initiates the work of salvation through grace, human beings must freely choose to cooperate with that grace for salvation to be effective.
  
  
• Synergistic models often emphasize the role of human free will in responding to God's offer of salvation.
  
  
• Theological traditions that generally hold to synergistic views include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Arminianism (including Methodists), and some expressions within evangelicalism (sometimes leaning towards Semi-Pelagianism).

Key Differences and Historical Context:

The central point of divergence between monergism and synergism lies in the understanding of human nature and the role of free will in salvation.

• Human Ability: Monergism emphasizes the total inability of fallen humanity to initiate salvation, while synergism posits that humans retain some capacity to respond to God's grace.
• God's Sovereignty vs. Human Freedom: Monergism strongly affirms God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, asserting that His will is ultimately effective. Synergism seeks to uphold human freedom and responsibility in the process.
  
  
• Regeneration and Faith: Monergists typically believe that regeneration precedes faith and is a work of God that enables faith. Synergists often see faith as the human act that initiates the saving relationship with God, sometimes with God's grace enabling that initial act (prevenient grace).

 

[Arial]

Part 2 @Eternally-Grateful response.
"in looking at these (and why I hate to deal with isms?

I have some aspects of both of these. but disagree with the totality of both of these.

I do believe it is God alone.

But I do not believe we co-operate (we have no part in our salvation.) God saves us, period.

which again, I like to talek about what each of us believe, not in ISMS, because when we try to plant people in a group. and if they are not 100 % in line with that group. we will never understand what that persons believes.

Maybe this is what is going on here. Your trying to see me as a synergist or however you say it?

I am no more a synergist than I am a calvinist or arminian"

First I will say that if something is identified under the heading of an "ism", that is all it is. It is the definition of a term. And a definition is a definition. We don't get to change it.

So let's do as EG asks and not plant him in a group (which was never done and no one's intention ever) and ask a simple question based on the definitions given above.

Is it possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time and in the same place? The "place" here being out salvation. IOW can salvation be all of God with us having no part in our salvation, and at the same time, require our cooperation in order for that salvation that is all of God to be effectual in saving?

In his response EG only mentioned two things and only stated his belief in that one area, though the definitions of both systems contained muich more. Are we to take it that is the one thing he agrees with and the one thing he disagrees with? And I am puzzled as to why, after doing that the conversation shifts to "ism"s and wondering if people were trying to see him a certain way?

 

[Tambora]

Is it possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time and in the same place?

Yes, as in the "now but not yet" scenario.

The "place" here being out salvation. IOW can salvation be all of God with us having no part in our salvation, and at the same time, require our cooperation in order for that salvation that is all of God to be effectual in saving?

Sure.
Scripture gives us examples of only God doing what was necessary to release mankind from the grave (death to life), while also wanting man to be involved when He tells man to choose life instead of death.

In his response EG only mentioned two things and only stated his belief in that one area, though the definitions of both systems contained muich more. Are we to take it that is the one thing he agrees with and the one thing he disagrees with? And I am puzzled as to why, after doing that the conversation shifts to "ism"s and wondering if people were trying to see him a certain way?

I actually admire folks that choose to not pigeonhole themself into a one-sided perspective that must strictly be adhered to at all times without exception.
And I believe scripture shows us that is not the way to live our lives.

Example:
Were the priests to always strictly adhere to the law of Moses at all times or could there be times when mercy needed to trump the law and thus should be broken at times?
(The starving David and his men eating of the shewbread which was unlawful to do.)

As scripture tells us:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8​

(1) For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:​

(2) a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;​

(3) a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;​

(4) a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;​

(5) a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;​

(6) a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;​

(7) a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;​

(8) a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.​

 

[Arial]

Yes, as in the "now but not yet" scenario.

I am not sure if you are giving that as an example of believing two contradictory things at the same time and in the same place, or if you are giving it as evidence of synergism in salvation.

However, the right now but not yet is not the same thing in the same place at the same time.

Sure.
Scripture gives us examples of only God doing what was necessary to release mankind from the grave (death to life), while also wanting man to be involved when He tells man to choose life instead of death.

That is a command, involving Covenant stipulations that are clearly laid out by God. He gives the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. It also involved keeping possession of the land and God as their providing protecting God. Monergism concerns salvation unto eternal life through faith in the person and work of Jesus. Man can contribute absolutely nothing to that. He must be regenerated. Something must change within him, something that he cannot do himself---change his heart from the hard heart inherited from Adam that is opposed to God, to soft and pliable heart molded by God and on which are written the commandments. (Instead of on stone tablets.) And he must be given the faith that comes from understanding and believing. It just is not inside of him in Adam.

The "confusion" that we all wrestle with, (even those of Reformed theology) is the distinction between cooperation and responsibility. It is not easy to rectify or make in the human mind, but God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is a distinction, and the distinction is not cooperation. Man is responsible TO God to be obedient. This is an ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in us and is just as monergistic as our initial conversion. He teaches us through his word and those softened hearts delight in his commands and do them.

I actually admire folks that choose to not pigeonhole themself into a one-sided perspective that must strictly be adhered to at all times without exception.
And I believe scripture shows us that is not the way to live our lives.

I don't know anyone who actually does that unless it is those who refuse to hear and learn simply because something is being discussed through the definition of a particular "ism". They have pigeonholed themselves as not willing to hear listen to anything that has "ism" on the end of it. I could agree with your statement if you had stopped with "I actually admire folks that choose to not pigeonhole themself into a one sided perspective." When the sentence continues with " that must strictly be adhered to at all times without exception" I have to ask, "Who does that?"

"Ism" is nothing more than identifying a particular set of beliefs, so that what is being discussed or put forth is identified. Words have definitions.

Example:
Were the priests to always strictly adhere to the law of Moses at all times or could there be times when mercy needed to trump the law and thus should be broken at times?
(The starving David and his men eating of the shewbread which was unlawful to do.)

As scripture tells us:
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8(1) For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven2) a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;(3) a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;(4) a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;(5) a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;(6) a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;(7) a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;(8) a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace

Not exactly relevant to what Part 2 of the OP said. Or the persons aversion to anything "ism". In the example of David, Jesus made it very clear that legalism (which is what was involved with the religious of Israel and rears the same ugly head among Christians)misses the point. "Isms" aren't legalism in and of themselves.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
Is it possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time and in the same place?

Yes, as in the "now but not yet" scenario

I think @Arial misstated the axiom. It should be, "...at the same time in the same way." (But there are several expressions of the 'Law of Non-Contradiction').

 

[ReverendRV]

This OP is in response to portion of another thread in which @Eternally-Grateful made the claim of being neither, while also claiming both in part but not in full. @ElectedbyHim gave the definitions in that thread, and I will post them here. Then I will quote EG's response. My purpose is to get clarity and give EG the opportunity to discuss it and defend his position here, as the topic of the other thread was "free will."
Monergism:

• The term "monergism" comes from the Greek words "monos" (alone) and "ergon" (work), essentially meaning "one work."
  
  
• In theology, monergism is the doctrine that God alone is the active agent in salvation, particularly in the regeneration (new birth) of an individual.
  
  
• This view posits that human beings, in their fallen state, are spiritually dead and incapable of initiating or contributing to their salvation.
• Monergists believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, sovereignly works in the hearts of the elect, granting them the gifts of faith and repentance, enabling them to willingly respond to the Gospel.
• Key theological traditions that strongly emphasize monergism include Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology (including many Anglicans).

Synergism:

• The term "synergism" originates from the Greek words "syn" (with) and "ergon" (work), meaning "working together" or "cooperation."
  
  
• In theology, synergism is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and humanity.
  
  
• This view asserts that while God initiates the work of salvation through grace, human beings must freely choose to cooperate with that grace for salvation to be effective.
  
  
• Synergistic models often emphasize the role of human free will in responding to God's offer of salvation.
  
  
• Theological traditions that generally hold to synergistic views include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Arminianism (including Methodists), and some expressions within evangelicalism (sometimes leaning towards Semi-Pelagianism).

Key Differences and Historical Context:

The central point of divergence between monergism and synergism lies in the understanding of human nature and the role of free will in salvation.

• Human Ability: Monergism emphasizes the total inability of fallen humanity to initiate salvation, while synergism posits that humans retain some capacity to respond to God's grace.
• God's Sovereignty vs. Human Freedom: Monergism strongly affirms God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, asserting that His will is ultimately effective. Synergism seeks to uphold human freedom and responsibility in the process.
  
  
• Regeneration and Faith: Monergists typically believe that regeneration precedes faith and is a work of God that enables faith. Synergists often see faith as the human act that initiates the saving relationship with God, sometimes with God's grace enabling that initial act (prevenient grace).

In a strict sense, we can't be a Monergist and a Synergist at the same time. Unconditional Election and Prevenient Regeneration are strictly Monergistic. In the less strict sense, our Post Regenerative Works are Synergistic...

 

[Arial]

In a strict sense, we can't be a Monergist and a Synergist at the same time. Unconditional Election and Prevenient Regeneration are strictly Monergistic. In the less strict sense, our Post Regenerative Works are Synergistic...

I disagree as I have said before. Sanctification is not about synergism. It is about human responsibility to God, and it is God who predestines this being conforming to Christ, so all sanctification (post regenerative works) are the results of God working in us and completing the work that he began in us.

The conflict with the other poster that shows up in part 2, was a belief that salvation is entirely monergistic and at the same time claiming that people choose Christ, and also that even though faith is a gift of God he only helps us understand the gospel and when we choose to accept the gift of faith, then he regenerates us. And if we do not choose to accept the gift offered, we stand condemned. Ineffectual grace!

To be honest, I have come to believe that maybe that last comes from not understanding what regeneration is and confusing it with sanctification. Though I have asked him about this before and he denies any confusion between the two. So I don't know.

 

[ReverendRV]

I disagree as I have said before. Sanctification is not about synergism. It is about human responsibility to God, and it is God who predestines this being conforming to Christ, so all sanctification (post regenerative works) are the results of God working in us and completing the work that he began in us.

The conflict with the other poster that shows up in part 2, was a belief that salvation is entirely monergistic and at the same time claiming that people choose Christ, and also that even though faith is a gift of God he only helps us understand the gospel and when we choose to accept the gift of faith, then he regenerates us. And if we do not choose to accept the gift offered, we stand condemned. Ineffectual grace!

To be honest, I have come to believe that maybe that last comes from not understanding what regeneration is and confusing it with sanctification. Though I have asked him about this before and he denies any confusion between the two. So I don't know.

Is Agency Synergistic?

 

[atpollard]

Is it possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time and in the same place? The "place" here being out salvation. IOW can salvation be all of God with us having no part in our salvation, and at the same time, require our cooperation in order for that salvation that is all of God to be effectual in saving?

Where would prevenient grace fall?

• On our own we can do nothing.
• By a special act of grace, God frees us from slavery to sin and creates in us the ability to freely choose to accept or reject the salvation He offers through His blood on the cross.
• We exercise that God given empowerment and choose to believe or to reject “so great a salvation”.

Is “salvation” monergistic or synergistic?
Is “belief” monergistic or synergistic?


John 3:16 [ESV] "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Ephesians 2:8 [ESV] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Another way of asking this is … “belief”, “grace”, “saved” and “faith” … is it 100% “GIFT” with NOTHING a response from the person? Is that not active-active predestination as taught by Hyper-Calvinism and Hard Determinism? Is that really what the Bible teaches?

 

[ReverendRV]

Arial said:
Is it possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time and in the same place?

I think @Arial misstated the axiom. It should be, "...at the same time in the same way." (But there are several expressions of the 'Law of Non-Contradiction').

Yes; Jesus is God and Man at the same time...

 

[Arial]

Is Agency Synergistic?

OK, let's use a simple definition of synergism. "The theological doctrine that one's salvation is brought about by a combination of human will and divine grace." Human agency is involved after monergism. After God alone has done and given all that is necessary for salvation. God alone is the agent of human salvation.

The faith that God gives becomes ours when he gives it to us. When he gives that faith we do believe and since we do believe there is no way to reject, no choice to not believe. Our agency has nothing to do with it. We do things but we do them only because of what God has done for us and in us.

 

[ReverendRV]

OK, let's use a simple definition of synergism. "The theological doctrine that one's salvation is brought about by a combination of human will and divine grace." Human agency is involved after monergism. After God alone has done and given all that is necessary for salvation. God alone is the agent of human salvation.

The faith that God gives becomes ours when he gives it to us. When he gives that faith we do believe and since we do believe there is no way to reject, no choice to not believe. Our agency has nothing to do with it. We do things but we do them only because of what God has done for us and in us.

Well I guess I disagree; Agency isn't Agency, if it has nothing to do with it after Regeneration. Of course Agency has nothing to do with Salvation before Regeneration...

 

[Arial]

Where would prevenient grace fall?

• On our own we can do nothing.
• By a special act of grace, God frees us from slavery to sin and creates in us the ability to freely choose to accept or reject the salvation He offers through His blood on the cross.
• We exercise that God given empowerment and choose to believe or to reject “so great a salvation”.

You would need to demonstrate that that is the case. I don't believe it is. I don't believe the Bible ever presents such a thing. The Bible never says that the cross offers salvation. Or that the atonement freed all mankind from slavery to sin. Or that saving grace is an offer. And I am still waiting for someone to explain how one chooses to believe something ---something else that is not in the Bible. A person either believes something or they don't. If one "chooses" to not believe it means they don't believe.

Is “salvation” monergistic or synergistic?

Monergistic.

Is “belief” monergistic or synergistic?

It is the product of monergism. By grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of Yourselves it is the gift of (from) God.

John 3:16 [ESV] "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Right. Does it say whoever chooses to believe in him? Or does it say those who believe in him will never perish?

Another way of asking this is … “belief”, “grace”, “saved” and “faith” … is it 100% “GIFT” with NOTHING a response from the person? Is that not active-active predestination as taught by Hyper-Calvinism and Hard Determinism? Is that really what the Bible teaches?

What do you mean by hyper Calvinism? Just plain old 5 point Calvinism does not teach that there is no response from the person God regenerates. It teaches the response is because of the work of God in them and not their cooperation in being saved.

 

[atpollard]

What do you mean by hyper Calvinism? Just plain old 5 point Calvinism does not teach that there is no response from the person God regenerates. It teaches the response is because of the work of God in them and not their cooperation in being saved.

Two points.

First point:
The weakness of this site is it is SO heavily REFORMED that there is some risk of all topics becoming 'echo chambers'. Thus I attempt to offer alternatives that I am aware of even if I do not personally hold those views. This is such a case. I am a 5-point Monergist, so I will only go so far to defend Wesleyan "Prevenient Grace" to offer thoughts for conversation.

Second Point:
Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God is SO in control that God actively DRAWS the elect towards himself (the saints were created by God predestined and irresistible compelled by God to accept Christ and worship Him) ... so far you may not have a problem, but wait ... and in the EXACT SAME WAY, God actively REPELS the reprobate away from himself (the sinners were created by God predestined and irresistible compelled by God to reject Christ and be damned by Him). God's treatment of the saved and lost is identical and opposite: God actively forces each into their predetermined role and eternal destiny.

In other words, the saved are saved because it pleased God to create them as "the saved" and the damned are damned because it pleased God to create them as "damned". God is 100% responsible for both. Taken to its conclusion, evangelism is a waste of time as God will save whom He has already predestined without any interference from us, and the damned are irresistibly damned, so the gospel would be wasted on them.

That is Hyper-Calvinism.


So my question [in this discussion] is how far do you press MONERGISM (100% God, we do NOTHING) before you should really be embracing Hyper-Calvinism [which is contradicted by scripture]?

 

[Josheb]

.

Can A Person Be a Monergist and a Synergist At the Same Time? Can One Be Neither?​

No. It's not possible because the two terms are antithetical to one another.

There is, however, a spectrum among synergists where some are lean more monergist than others. They call themselves "Calminians," or "Armvinists," or some other mash-up of Calvinist and Arminian. I was once an ardent Arminian but through the influence of monergists in discussion boards (DB), and my repeated re-examination of scripture and my own conversion became Calminian and described myself using that label in DBs. I did so having already read many books on the topic, including Calvin's "Institutes." (so extra-biblical sources were/are not, in themselves) convincing). Arminius was a one-pointer (because he accepted and taught Total Depravity), and possibly 1.5er. It's ironic that he'd be called Calminian or Armvinist . However, even with that meager consensus, he'd be miles away from Provisionism.

 

[makesends]

Is Agency Synergistic?

Not in the sense that "we act and God reacts."

Nor in the sense that what we do adds to what God is doing. Not in the sense that "We do our part, and God does his part."

 

[Josheb]

Is Agency Synergistic?

There is no salvifically functional or meritorious volitional agency prior to regeneration, and even if there were, God has no interest in it. Will is irrelevant in salvation. The idea volition is relevant (relevant, not just salient) has always been a red herring. Synergists have etched out a miniscule victory in the debate by succeeding in making the sinner's will relevant prior to regeneration when it is not.

At all.

 

[makesends]

You would need to demonstrate that that is the case. I don't believe it is. I don't believe the Bible ever presents such a thing. The Bible never says that the cross offers salvation. Or that the atonement freed all mankind from slavery to sin. Or that saving grace is an offer. And I am still waiting for someone to explain how one chooses to believe something ---something else that is not in the Bible. A person either believes something or they don't. If one "chooses" to not believe it means they don't believe.

Not that it is definitive of the way one can choose to believe, but I remember noticing as a kid, how a whole team of volleyball players can believe the ball was OUT while the other team believes it was IN. I had to say then, that at least some of them CHOSE to believe what they believed (and rather vehemently at that!)

But whether one does or does not choose to believe is not the same (and here is where @Eternally-Grateful and I disagree) with salvific faith as it is with any other faith. That the ball is IN is believed by some by choice, and by others empirically. Whether one's spouse is dependable can be learned or chosen to the point of ignoring any signs to the contrary. But Salvific Faith is of a different nature from the usual mental processes --not learned, not chosen, but ENGENDERED IN (into?) the person, and that, by radical change of person, or irresistibly concurrent with that radical change.

We talk as though OUR comprehension/decisions/beliefs are of some degree substantive. It would be more to the point to ask if WE ourselves are of substance! In Salvific Faith, it is not that WE believe that makes it valid faith, but that it is GOD's work in us. The fact that WE (whether actively or passively) believe is only a result --a logically-necessary result-- of the fact that it is done in us.

 

[makesends]

Not that it is definitive of the way one can choose to believe, but I remember noticing as a kid, how a whole team of volleyball players can believe the ball was OUT while the other team believes it was IN. I had to say then, that at least some of them CHOSE to believe what they believed (and rather vehemently at that!)

But whether one does or does not choose to believe is not the same (and here is where @Eternally-Grateful and I disagree) with salvific faith as it is with any other faith. That the ball is IN is believed by some by choice, and by others empirically. Whether one's spouse is dependable can be learned or chosen to the point of ignoring any signs to the contrary. But Salvific Faith is of a different nature from the usual mental processes --not learned, not chosen, but ENGENDERED IN (into?) the person, and that, by radical change of person, or irresistibly concurrent with that radical change.

We talk as though OUR comprehension/decisions/beliefs are of some degree substantive. It would be more to the point to ask if WE ourselves are of substance! In Salvific Faith, it is not that WE believe that makes it valid faith, but that it is GOD's work in us. The fact that WE (whether actively or passively) believe is only a result --a logically-necessary result-- of the fact that it is done in us.

Even the nature of our Regeneration (not just our Sanctification) can be described as becoming IN CHRIST.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not that it is definitive of the way one can choose to believe, but I remember noticing as a kid, how a whole team of volleyball players can believe the ball was OUT while the other team believes it was IN. I had to say then, that at least some of them CHOSE to believe what they believed (and rather vehemently at that!)

But whether one does or does not choose to believe is not the same (and here is where @Eternally-Grateful and I disagree) with salvific faith as it is with any other faith. That the ball is IN is believed by some by choice, and by others empirically. Whether one's spouse is dependable can be learned or chosen to the point of ignoring any signs to the contrary. But Salvific Faith is of a different nature from the usual mental processes --not learned, not chosen, but ENGENDERED IN (into?) the person, and that, by radical change of person, or irresistibly concurrent with that radical change.

We talk as though OUR comprehension/decisions/beliefs are of some degree substantive. It would be more to the point to ask if WE ourselves are of substance! In Salvific Faith, it is not that WE believe that makes it valid faith, but that it is GOD's work in us. The fact that WE (whether actively or passively) believe is only a result --a logically-necessary result-- of the fact that it is done in us.

yes. we have a disagreement

Salvic faith is not some special faith as the Catholics like to put it. (a religious things as I see it) it is simple faith. Jesus said faith of a mustard seed can move a mountain

Jesus gave as an example. a type of Christ in the OT. of what happens.

The bronze serpent.

Moses told the people. If you get bit. Look to this serpent and you will live (the word of God)

Those who loved (believed) were saved those who did not. would have died.

Jesus said in the same manor, The son of man must be lifted up so whoever believes will not perish (not die) and their new life will be forever.

The word of God is no different. we are dead, if we are not rescued..

If you want to live. Look to the cross.

If not. Keep looking away

He who believes is not condemned.

He who does not believe is condemned already.

I like how the man who came to Jesus said, Lord I believe Help me with my unbelief.