Which Doctrines are Monergistic and which are not?

[Bruiser]

Yes, everyone has their opinions. But the "proof" is in the pudding, not what someone says. Fuller was no Calvinist. Especially not a 5-pointer.

Some of the differences between Baptists and Presbyterians...

 

[Carbon]

Some of the differences between Baptists and Presbyterians...

Yes, there are differences between Baptists and Presbyterians, for sure. However, there is no difference between the 5 points. They all depend on each other also; remove one, and the whole system collapses. Therefore, there can be no 4 or 4 1/2 pointer.

 

[Arial]

God's Providence...

2nd WCF C3 P1; God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree. Of God's Decree — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Doesn't God's Providence HAVE to be Synergistic?

It isn't synergism, it is concurrence. Synergism in theology is not just more than one cause involved. It specifically refers to cooperative causation within the same order, especially in salvation. IOW God and man contributing jointly to the same effect in a way that makes the result partly dependent on each.

Your question assumes that if both God and humans are involved, then the relationship must be synergistic. That is a collapsing of vertical causation (God as primary cause) with horizontal causation (creature as secondary causes) into a single causal plane. But God's causation is transcendent and non-competitive. The creaturely causation is derivative. God ordains and man truly acts (compatibilism via concurrence).

Interestingly, the WCF wording explicitly rejects the move of collapsing causal distinctions. with the little word "yet" followed by "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature---".

 

[Arial]

The Cut to the Chase question would be; do you believe a little Monergism leavens Synergism? Meaning any Monergism overwhelms Synergism to the point it's Moot...

And yes, the Doctrines of Grace are Monergistic, because Grace is Monergistic...

Monergism and Synergism are like water and oil. Where there is monergism there is no synergism and if all of salvation is of God, there is no synergism. I wouldn't phrase it as overwhelming synergism, but I get your point.

 

[Bruiser]

It isn't synergism, it is concurrence. Synergism in theology is not just more than one cause involved. It specifically refers to cooperative causation within the same order, especially in salvation. IOW God and man contributing jointly to the same effect in a way that makes the result partly dependent on each.

Your question assumes that if both God and humans are involved, then the relationship must be synergistic. That is a collapsing of vertical causation (God as primary cause) with horizontal causation (creature as secondary causes) into a single causal plane. But God's causation is transcendent and non-competitive. The creaturely causation is derivative. God ordains and man truly acts (compatibilism via concurrence).

Interestingly, the WCF wording explicitly rejects the move of collapsing causal distinctions. with the little word "yet" followed by "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature---".

Why is Concurrence not Synergism, when both involved in an Act are Causations?

 

[Arial]

Why is Concurrence not Synergism, when both involved in an Act are Causations?

Because synergism requires:

Two causes on the same level​

Each contributing a portion of the causal effect​

With the outcome depending on their joint cooperation​

​

Concurrence on the other hand:

Causes are on different levels (primary vs secondary)​

God is not a partial contributor but the ground of the whole act​

The creature is a true, immediate cause, not a co-equal partner​

​

In synergism, causes are competitive or cooperative as peers. In concurrence, causes are non-competitive. It makes creaturely causation possible.

To illustrate: A writer (primary cause) and a pen (secondary cause) he writes with. The pen truly writes but only because the writer is enabling it. The writer and pen do not cooperate as equal contributors.

​

 

[Bruiser]

Because synergism requires:

Two causes on the same level​

Each contributing a portion of the causal effect​

With the outcome depending on their joint cooperation​

​

Concurrence on the other hand:

Causes are on different levels (primary vs secondary)​

God is not a partial contributor but the ground of the whole act​

The creature is a true, immediate cause, not a co-equal partner​

​

In synergism, causes are competitive or cooperative as peers. In concurrence, causes are non-competitive. It makes creaturely causation possible.

To illustrate: A writer (primary cause) and a pen (secondary cause) he writes with. The pen truly writes but only because the writer is enabling it. The writer and pen do not cooperate as equal contributors.

​

That would get me back to my question; does a little Monergism leaven the Lump of Synergism? It sounds like you say Yes; since God is the First Cause...

But I say both Causes in an Act are equal. I base it on the GodMan. Jesus lived his life on the level of an Unfallen Adam by suppressing the expression of his Deity. The Logos dialed down the First Cause in Christ's life. God's First Cause in everyone's life doesn't overwhelm their lives either; or this would offer Violence in order for God to get his way...

The word Violence is the Old way of saying Coercion. The WCF is worded perfectly to make it's Point...

 

[Bruiser]

The Hypostatic Union...

The Hypostatic Union was not Monergistic, since the Humanity of Jesus is involved in running Christ's life...

 

[atpollard]

Why is Concurrence not Synergism, when both involved in an Act are Causations?

Causation comes downstream of God.

God determines what WILL HAPPEN.

• God acts directly on people (like you): Acts 16:14 "The LORD opened her heart ...".
• God acts directly on people or circumstances and those people/circumstances act on you (secondary causes)
• God allows events (like your choice to sin and its natural consequences) that bring you to a place that aligns with God's plan (secondary causes)

Based on the three above, you make a free choice that God predetermined ("whosoever believes", "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed", "it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure").
It is "monergistic" because God was never NOT in control and you never "shared" control (synergism).


Here is the 1689 Baptist (London) Confession version of that part of the WCF [since you and I are Baptists] ...

Of God's Decree
[Chapter 3; Paragraph 1]

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4​

​

1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18​

2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5​

3 Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11​

4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5​

​

and in "Modern English" ...​

​

From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself.1 He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that He is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin.2 This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree.3 In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and His power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing His decree.4​

 

[fastfredy0]

Concurrence on the other hand:
Causes are on different levels (primary vs secondary)God is not a partial contributor but the ground of the whole act The creature is a true, immediate cause, not a co-equal partner.

To illustrate: A writer (primary cause) and a pen (secondary cause) he writes with. The pen truly writes but only because the writer is enabling it. The writer and pen do not cooperate as equal contributors.

How does this illustration differ from "hard determinism"?

 

[fastfredy0]

yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin

Hey, you're going to get back to your theme in a recent "theodicy" thread.
What is the definition of "author of sin"?

... maybe we shouldn't go there again

 

[atpollard]

Hey, you're going to get back to your theme in a recent "theodicy" thread.
What is the definition of "author of sin"?

... maybe we shouldn't go there again

James 1:13-15 [NKJV]
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

• According to James, does SIN come from God?
• According to James, where does sin come from?

1 John 1:5 [NKJV]
5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

• In John's "light" and "darkness" analogy, what does "darkness" represent?
• According to John, is sin (darkness) found in God?
• Based on scripture, is God the "author of sin"?

 

[fastfredy0]

James 1:13-15 [NKJV]
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God";

Well, seems to me that the Spirit lead Christ into the wilderness to be tempted ... I've heard there's some commonality between "tested" or "tempted". Beats me.

• According to James, does SIN come from God?
• According to James, where does sin come from?

According to Augustine, sin is not a thing. It is the lack of righteousness. So it's not possible for God to sin unless He declares something sinful that He performs. Thus, God can't sin. Seems to me God created creatures and gave them rules and gave them the inability to obey the rules (maybe exception of Adam and Eve).

• In John's "light" and "darkness" analogy, what does "darkness" represent?
• According to John, is sin (darkness) found in God?
• Based on scripture, is God the "author of sin"?

Well, I stand by my previous comment. God makes the rules for man and Himself and He never breaks rules He's make for Himself which rules differ from those He has made for men.
Is God the Author of sin ..... I need a definition. God ordains all things so seems to me He wrote the book and is the Author of Sin. (Looks up for fear of being hit by lightning).

I'll let someone smarter than I speak:
This does not mean that God himself is evil. To metaphysically cause evil and to morally commit evil are two different things. One is a matter of ability to cause something, while the other is a matter of conformity to a principle. The Bible teaches that God is the one who defines right and wrong, and that sin is a transgression of God's law. Therefore, for God to commit evil by causing evil he must declare a moral law that forbids himself to decree or to cause evil, that is, to decree or to cause his creatures to transgress his law. There is no biblical basis to suppose that God has declared such a law against himself. Indeed, the Bible teaches that all that God says and does are right and good. If he says it, it must be true. If he does it, it must be good. Therefore, since God is sovereign and there is evil, God must be the cause of evil, and since he is the cause of evil, it must be right and good for him to be the cause of evil.

The Bible teaches that God's decrees and actions are always right and good. Since he is completely sovereign, and there is evil in this universe, this means that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. But since his decrees and actions are always right and good, then this means that it is right and good that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. The very fact that he decrees and causes evil means that it is right and good for him to do so.

This does not mean that evil is good, which would be a contradiction. Sin is defined as a transgression of God's moral law, and when we say that God is the author of sin, we are saying that God is the metaphysical cause of a creature's transgression of God's moral law. God transgresses no moral law, since there is no moral law against what he does, but he causes the creature to transgress.

Although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 1 Samuel 18:10, 1 Samuel 19:9). But in all of this, God is righteous.

The motive and effect of the Reformed answer is to accommodate human standards of fairness and righteousness. Dabney, Shedd, and others admitted that their answer is meant to satisfy human intuition. If not for the fact that God's absolute sovereignty is repugnant to sinful human intuition, made defective by the noetic effects of sin, the "author of sin" question would have no logical entry point into theological discussions.

In contrast, the biblical approach to this type of questions and objections is not to justify God, but to rebuke man for making the challenge in the first place. Our passage from Isaiah 45 is one example: I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God…. I am the LORD, and there is no other… I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things…. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "He has no hands"? Woe to him who says to his father, "What have you begotten?" or to his mother, "What have you brought to birth?" In all these things – there is not another God to do them. How dare you question me about this? Who are you to object?"

He is the only God, and this is inseparably connected to the fact that it is this one and only God who causes "all these things," including both prosperity and disaster. He is the doer of them all. This is a denial of any type of dualism – there is not another power that can cause prosperity or disaster. Vincent Cheung – Author of Sin

 

[Arial]

That would get me back to my question; does a little Monergism leaven the Lump of Synergism? It sounds like you say Yes; since God is the First Cause...

You assume that if A and B are both causes of X, then A and B cooperate in the same way. That premise is false because it ignores orders of causation.

However, the primary cause (God) gives being, power, and efficacy to the act and is not one cause among others.

The secondary cause (creature)does the willing, choosing, intending and operates within creation.

These are not two partial contributors to one effect but rather the secondary cause only acts because the primary cause is enabling it to act. That is not synergism.

Synergism requires two causes on the same level, each contributing a portion of the causal effect with the outcome depending on their joint cooperation.

Concurrence on the other hand says causes are on different levels (primary vs secondary), God is not a partial contributor but the ground of the whole act. The creature is a true, immediate cause, not a co-equal partner.

But I say both Causes in an Act are equal. I base it on the GodMan. Jesus lived his life on the level of an Unfallen Adam by suppressing the expression of his Deity. The Logos dialed down the First Cause in Christ's life. God's First Cause in everyone's life doesn't overwhelm their lives either; or this would offer Violence in order for God to get his way...

Your appeal to Christ is a serious theological error. You implicitly invoke a form of kenoticism: "The Logos "dialed down" divine activity".

This conflicts with classical Christology. Council of Chalcedon expresses that Christ has two natures. The divine nature in not diminished, suppressed, or reduced and that Christ's human nature operates fully according to its own properties. Christ's human will is real and free yet the divine nature remains fully active as primary cause.

Cause does not mean the same thing when applied to God and creatures. God causes as Creator. Humans cause as creatures. They are not comparable as equals.

The word Violence is the Old way of saying Coercion. The WCF is worded perfectly to make it's Point...

WCF: "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature"

That is not saying that God limits his causation to avoid coercion. It is saying. God's mode of causation is such that it establishes the will rather than overriding it.

 

[Bruiser]

Causation comes downstream of God.

God determines what WILL HAPPEN.

• God acts directly on people (like you): Acts 16:14 "The LORD opened her heart ...".
• God acts directly on people or circumstances and those people/circumstances act on you (secondary causes)
• God allows events (like your choice to sin and its natural consequences) that bring you to a place that aligns with God's plan (secondary causes)

Based on the three above, you make a free choice that God predetermined ("whosoever believes", "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed", "it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure").
It is "monergistic" because God was never NOT in control and you never "shared" control (synergism).


Here is the 1689 Baptist (London) Confession version of that part of the WCF [since you and I are Baptists] ...

Of God's Decree
[Chapter 3; Paragraph 1]

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4​

​

1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18​

2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5​

3 Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11​

4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5​

​

and in "Modern English" ...​

​

From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself.1 He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that He is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin.2 This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree.3 In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and His power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing His decree.4​

God opening Lydia's heart is Monergistic...

Can you think of any Doctrine which isn't Monergistic?

 

[Bruiser]

You assume that if A and B are both causes of X, then A and B cooperate in the same way. That premise is false because it ignores orders of causation.

However, the primary cause (God) gives being, power, and efficacy to the act and is not one cause among others.

The secondary cause (creature)does the willing, choosing, intending and operates within creation.

These are not two partial contributors to one effect but rather the secondary cause only acts because the primary cause is enabling it to act. That is not synergism.

Synergism requires two causes on the same level, each contributing a portion of the causal effect with the outcome depending on their joint cooperation.

Concurrence on the other hand says causes are on different levels (primary vs secondary), God is not a partial contributor but the ground of the whole act. The creature is a true, immediate cause, not a co-equal partner.

Your appeal to Christ is a serious theological error. You implicitly invoke a form of kenoticism: "The Logos "dialed down" divine activity".

This conflicts with classical Christology. Council of Chalcedon expresses that Christ has two natures. The divine nature in not diminished, suppressed, or reduced and that Christ's human nature operates fully according to its own properties. Christ's human will is real and free yet the divine nature remains fully active as primary cause.

Cause does not mean the same thing when applied to God and creatures. God causes as Creator. Humans cause as creatures. They are not comparable as equals.

WCF: "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature"

That is not saying that God limits his causation to avoid coercion. It is saying. God's mode of causation is such that it establishes the will rather than overriding it.

Not Kenoticism. The Logos of God Suppressed the Expression of his Deity to live on the level of an Unfallen Adam. Believing this, is not Kenoticism. No more than God giving people over to themselves is Kenoticism, giving them over is taking his hands off. Christ's Deity giving himself over to his Humanity isn't Kenoticism. Christ's Deity asleep in the bottom of his Humanity's boat, isn't the diminishing of his Deity...

 

[Arial]

How does this illustration differ from "hard determinism"?

Admittedly a bad illustration if used (as I lazily did) for concurrence. As stated, it actually is an illustration of hard determinism. in concurrence the human will is not like the pen---purely passive, but a true agent.

Good catch!

 

[Bruiser]

Admittedly a bad illustration if used (as I lazily did) for concurrence. As stated, it actually is an illustration of hard determinism. in concurrence the human will is not like the pen---purely passive, but a true agent.

Good catch!

It's not as clear cut as many think...

Carbon said a little Synergism is not Monergism; IE Post 3...

 

[Bruiser]

How does this illustration differ from "hard determinism"?

This reminds me of the old Non Calvist argument that Soft Determinism is really Hard Determinism. Something similar is happening here; Secondary Causations are really First Causations...

I'm a Calvinist at heart, but I want to get it all right ..

 

[Arial]

This reminds me of the old Non Calvist argument that Soft Determinism is really Hard Determinism. Something similar is happening here; Secondary Causations are really First Causations...

I'm a Calvinist at heart, but I want to get it all right ..

The illustration was corrected by me, so what is your question now? The illustration actually shows hard determinism but that is not the position of Reformed concurrence. Or monergism.