Which Doctrines are Monergistic and which are not?

[atpollard]

Obedience is indeed necessary, and if we are not obedient, we are not 'in Christ'.

1 John 2:1-2 [NLT]
1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.

So then, if/when “dear children” obey and do not sin, they are in Christ, but if/when “dear children” do not obey and do sin, they are not in Christ … until/unless they repent, because Jesus will then forgive (1 John 1:9) and they will be back in Christ again.
Perhaps you could explain that in greater detail, because I have some issues with the apparent consequences of your statement. [It feels a lot like free will based loss of salvation.]

 

[atpollard]

So, I am a carpenter with a hammer and my task is to drive a nail into a board. Would this task fall under the definition of Synergism or monergism?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Synergism: “interaction of discrete agencies (such as industrial firms), agents (such as drugs), or conditions such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects”

Yes, it is synergism. The carpenter with a hammer can accomplish more than either the carpenter alone or the hammer alone, thus the total effect is greater than the individual effects.

• If you wish to test this empirically:
  • Place a hammer and a box of nails next to a board.
  • Place a carpenter and a box of nails next to a board.
  • Compare the effect of a carpenter only and a hammer only to the effect of a carpenter with a hammer.

 

[atpollard]

However, there are two things on which we must insist-- one, that our work does not qualify nor increase God's work, nor his decree, in any way-- which is related to the second,

I 100% agree. [acknowledging common ground]

that even what we do in such participation or cooperation is also the work of God, done by him for his purposes.

Not sure that I agree. Certainly God is working IN US [Philippians 2:13], but as worded it feels too hardcore deterministic [risking falling into the trap of "God's automaton" which violates the "love" of God's character and the "children" of the relationship]. We are more than an obedient pot that cannot help but passively do the purpose we were set to do.

As I put it, "We do so because it is so". As in WCF 3.1, what we choose to do is ESTABLISHED by God. Not because we choose, but because he ordained it.

In Genesis, why did Joseph's brothers hate him, attack him, throw him in a well and sell him into slavery?
Did they have no choice/responsibility but were merely ordained to do those actions and did them under compulsion?

• Genesis 50:20 [NKJV] "But as for you, you meant evil against me; [but] God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as [it is] this day, to save many people alive."

Genesis 50:20 indicates that events were established because THEY CHOSE and GOD ORDAINED it (both are true).

 

[fastfredy0]

That's why Sproul said Sanctification is Synergistic.

True ... Sproul's opinion, according to ChatGPT was:


Yes—R. C. Sproul taught that sanctification is synergistic, but with an important qualification rooted in Reformed theology.

What he meant:​

• Justification (being declared righteous) is monergistic
  → entirely the work of God alone.
• Sanctification (growing in holiness) is synergistic
  → involves both God’s work and the believer’s active participation.

Sproul’s nuance (very important):
Sproul did not mean equal cooperation between God and man. Instead:

• God is the primary cause and source of all spiritual growth.
• The believer must actively respond—through obedience, discipline, repentance, etc.
• Any ability to cooperate is itself enabled by grace.

Maybe we have different definition of "synergistic". If God is the cause of what we do then I call that monergistic. If we do anything independent of God's causation, then I define it as synergistic.

Aside: If Sproul and I disagree on any theological stance, I would bet on Sproul being correct.

 

[fastfredy0]

Yes, it [Carpenter and hammer interaction] is synergism.

Ah, well then using that understanding of synergism, I agree with you.

Next question ... using your definition of synergism, is our becoming a Christian synergistic? God (the carpenter) is the cause of our regeneration, but He could do it without us (the nails).

 

[fastfredy0]

Genesis 50:20 indicates that events were established because THEY CHOSE and GOD ORDAINED it (both are true).

But WHY did the brothers choose to go after Joseph? What/who is the cause of their desires?

Nothing can act before it be. The “will” of man was not and therefore could not make itself to be. For the “will” to produce itself is to act; if the “will” acted before it was, it was then something and nothing at the same time; it then had a being before it had a being; it acted when it brought itself into being. How could the “will” act without a being, without it was? So that if it were the cause of itself, it must be before itself as well as after itself; it was before it was; it was as a cause before it was as an effect. Action always supposeth a principle from whence it flows; as nothing hath no existence, so it hath no operation: there must be, therefore, something of real existence to give a being to those things that are, and every cause must be an effect of some other before it be a cause. Stephen Charnock

 

[atpollard]

Ah, well then using that understanding of synergism, I agree with you.

Next question ... using your definition of synergism, is our becoming a Christian synergistic? God (the carpenter) is the cause of our regeneration, but He could do it without us (the nails).

I think it is a categorical error. "synergism" is one of those words (like "work") that has a specific Theological definition [or, God help us a range of definitions based on denominations] and a completely different secular definition used in other contexts.

For THEOLOGY, I offered a definition of "synergism" from Theopedia in post #90.
For the HAMMER analogy (which was not theological, but practical), I offered a definition from Merriam-Webster in post #102.

Just as it is wrong to apply the definition of work (the transference of energy that is produced by the movement of the point of application of a force and is measured by multiplying the magnitude of the force by the amount of displacement of its point of application along the line of movement - physics) to a discussion on soteriology, it is wrong to apply the Merriam-Webster definition of synergism to Soteriology.

**********

I will point out that your analogy has changed from the Carpenter acting WITH a hammer ON a nail being "synergy" between the Carpenter and hammer (because neither could drive a nail alone) to an analogy where the partnership is with the NAIL that is being acted on as a passive participant. The nail has no choice in the matter and would probably have preferred to stay in the box with the other nails if it was given a vote [it was not].

To rephrase your analogy from carpentry back into human terms ...

Is our becoming a Christian synergistic? God is the cause of our regeneration, but without man's sin, Christ's redemption would have had nothing to redeem.

• So "Dear God, you are welcome for our rebellion!" [Is that our argument?]
• [time to "duck and cover" before a pillar of fire falls from the sky]

 

[atpollard]

But WHY did the brothers choose to go after Joseph? What/who is the cause of their desires?

Jacob and Leah and Rachel and a couple slave-wives and a family dynamic that made me feel a lot better about my thoroughly messed up childhood family.

Which goes back to Isaac and a mess with Rebekah and Esau and a father-in-law named Laban.

Which goes back to an old couple attempting to kill a child named Isaac.

Which goes back to a man named Abram that kept telling everyone his wife was his sister.

[Normal never grew on that "family tree".]

• James 1:13-15 [NASB]
  No one is to say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it has run its course, brings forth death.

 

[Bruiser]

Maybe we have different definition of "synergistic". If God is the cause of what we do then I call that monergistic. If we do anything independent of God's causation, then I define it as synergistic.

Aside: If Sproul and I disagree on any theological stance, I would bet on Sproul being correct.

The only nuance I would add is that the Confession draws a distinction between God's First Cause and our Second Cause. Is a Cause Synergistic? When it says God doesn't offer Violence to get his way, it means at least two Wills are both %100 Autonomously involved in an Act. I always say God's Providence is a Hypostasis of Wills; God's and ours. It certainly was that way with Jesus...

Christ's Will was Synergistic, right?

 

[fastfredy0]

[time to "duck and cover" before a pillar of fire falls from the sky]

agreed .... enough said ... thx for your input

 

[fastfredy0]

When it says God doesn't offer Violence to get his way, it means at least two Wills are both %100 Autonomously involved in an Act.

Well, the question doesn't answer the question, "Who/what determined our will. If there is an influence on one will then I don't define that as "autonomous", but if you disregard who/what formed our will, then I agree that we are autonomous.

Christ's Will was Synergistic, right?

I always think of Christ's will as a subset of his divine will. The question is getting to deep into the weeds given I don't think there is an agreed upon definition of 'synergism'.

 

[Bruiser]

Well, the question doesn't answer the question, "Who/what determined our will. If there is an influence on one will then I don't define that as "autonomous", but if you disregard who/what formed our will, then I agree that we are autonomous.


I always think of Christ's will as a subset of his divine will. The question is getting to deep into the weeds given I don't think there is an agreed upon definition of 'synergism'.

I know it's a big ask, but I look at this all Chalcedonian Creed like; inseparable and unmixed. Unmixed would match the WCF C 3 P1...

It seems most see the Causes only as Inseparable, and somehow Mixed ..

 

[makesends]

.... but who/what causes us to choose to work/sanctification? Seems the initial cause of is the monergistic regeneration. I would say we choose to work with God because He has changed our desires so I'd said our mutual work with God is monergistic. Just as the carpenter and hammer do work together, I define that as monergistic as the carpenter determines everything the hammer does. But, maybe some define the carpenter/hammer illustration as being synergistic.


... but who/what determines one's intentions/desires? Did I choose my desires and if so, why does everyone choose the desire to have a sin nature?


My hammer/nail can be applied to a believer in which case the carpenter decides to drive the nail ..... or the hammer/nail can be applied to a non-believer in which case the carpenter decides to NOT drive the nail.

So, you're saying Christians have "free will" if it comes to doing something sinful?
Was David's decision to disobey God and do a census due to David's free will?
2 Samuel 24:1 The Lord “incited” David to take a census of the people, but afterward David recognized this as sin, saying, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (2 Samuel 24:10), and God sent punishment on the land because of this sin (2 Samuel 24:12-17). However, it is clear that “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel” (2 Samuel 24:1), so God’s inciting of David to sin was a means by which he brought about punishment on the people of Israel. Moreover, the means by which God incited David is made clear in 1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” The Bible shows here that God, in order to bring about His purposes, worked through Satan to incite David to sin, but Scripture regards David as being responsible for that sin.

I am not saying anybody has freewill. Just will. I love that example of David taking the census, and several other incidents where it says plainly that God incited people to do wrong, but always by means of further causes, sometimes including evil spirits. The most extreme one was that it was by God's predetermined plan that Jesus Christ was put to death. (Acts 2:23)

As for the synergism of sanctification, I'll just stick to my definition. It is not monergistic in the same sense as regeneration is, but as you indicate, the same source for original faith, is the same as the continuing faith, which is the means of confession, repentance, obedience, and all virtues related to sanctification. That is very definitely not a matter of us increasing God's work. It is all God's work.

But it is a curious phenomenon how people both choose their desires and are driven by them. Not all their desires were chosen, but once theirs, they usually do feed those desires.

 

[fastfredy0]

But it is a curious phenomenon how people both choose their desires and are driven by them.

What desires do you have that were chosen by yourself? What was the basis for your selection?

Nothing can act before it be. The “will” of man was not and therefore could not make itself to be. For the “will” to produce itself is to act; if the “will” acted before it was, it was then something and nothing at the same time; it then had a being before it had a being; it acted when it brought itself into being. How could the “will” act without a being, without it was? So that if it were the cause of itself, it must be before itself as well as after itself; it was before it was; it was as a cause before it was as an effect. Action always supposeth a principle from whence it flows; as nothing hath no existence, so it hath no operation: there must be, therefore, something of real existence to give a being to those things that are, and every cause must be an effect of some other before it be a cause. Stephen Charnock

 

[makesends]

Bruiser said:
Christ's Will was Synergistic, right?

I always think of Christ's will as a subset of his divine will. The question is getting to deep into the weeds given I don't think there is an agreed upon definition of 'synergism'

I think it's worth mentioning that the categorization is not doctrine-driving. It is doctrine that should be driving the categorization. The tail should not be wagging the dog.

Jesus lived as we should, his temptations were as real as ours are, but he never was addicted to sin. His passions were controlled, his mind disciplined, his heart pure. The will was thus free, in that sense, but just as human as ours; the vicissitudes of life pushed him around, too. He pursued his mission wholeheartedly--as a human. He depended on the Father and the Spirit just as we should.

 

[makesends]

What desires do you have that were chosen by yourself? What was the basis for your selection?

I repudiate my sin, and pursue substitutes; I choose not to be addicted. If I am married, I learn to prefer some things that she prefers. Discipline.

Nothing can act before it be. The “will” of man was not and therefore could not make itself to be. For the “will” to produce itself is to act; if the “will” acted before it was, it was then something and nothing at the same time; it then had a being before it had a being; it acted when it brought itself into being. How could the “will” act without a being, without it was? So that if it were the cause of itself, it must be before itself as well as after itself; it was before it was; it was as a cause before it was as an effect. Action always supposeth a principle from whence it flows; as nothing hath no existence, so it hath no operation: there must be, therefore, something of real existence to give a being to those things that are, and every cause must be an effect of some other before it be a cause. Stephen Charnock

Agreed. Not sure why you bring this up. The will and the desires are not the same thing.

 

[fastfredy0]

Jesus lived as we should, his temptations were as real as ours are

Temptation defined: Temptation is the strong desire, urge, or allure to do or possess something, often knowing it is wrong, unwise, or harmful.

Did Christ have "strong desire, urges to sin" given He is also divine? We mere humans have a sin nature we inherited from Adam, whereas Christ did not. Christ was given great tests, but the desires of his human nature was nothing like those we inherited.

The will was thus free, in that sense,

His human nature was not free/independent of His divine nature IMO.

....not that I can comprehend God .... just random thoughts

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: What desires do you have that were chosen by yourself? What was the basis for your selection?

I repudiate my sin, and pursue substitutes; I choose not to be addicted. If I am married, I learn to prefer some things that she prefers. Discipline.

You repudiate your sin and pursue righteousness because you've been regenerated and the Spirit favors you, thus this is not an example of a desire your chose independent of God.
Again I state, you follow your desires, but you do not chose them.

Agreed. Not sure why you bring this up. The will and the desires are not the same thing.

I am pointing out that one does not pick their desires and therefore one is not free to chose where I define "free" as not influenced by external stimulus. You follow your desires, but you do not chose them.

Too many posts....losing my train of thought ... giggle

 

[fastfredy0]

If I am married, I learn to prefer some things that she prefers. Discipline.

This is not free will. More like the force of FEAR!!!! My wife controls my will.
Aside: Don't tell my wife I said this.
giggle

 

[makesends]

1 John 2:1-2 [NLT]
1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.

So then, if/when “dear children” obey and do not sin, they are in Christ, but if/when “dear children” do not obey and do sin, they are not in Christ … until/unless they repent, because Jesus will then forgive (1 John 1:9) and they will be back in Christ again.
Perhaps you could explain that in greater detail, because I have some issues with the apparent consequences of your statement. [It feels a lot like free will based loss of salvation.]

You are taking my statement wrong. I'm talking about continuing in sin--something an unbeliever does without even realizing it.

There is no contradiction. Scripture is replete with statements that people have used to teach sinless perfection, against which John vehemently disagrees. Those statements --I haven't searched them all out-- often use the Koine present tense, which designates ongoing or continuous action. The question isn't whether a believer sins--aorist tense = "point in time"--he does, but whether a person sins--present tense = "continuous action", which a believer does not.

My father was a New Testament Greek master, with a very practical understanding of languages. In the 1 John 1:9 case, it is very interesting that the Aorist is used in "forgive". My father said that contrary to the common translations of the verse, in which point-in-time is expected to be in reaction to the confession, that in fact the structure there indicates it is action already done in the past, yet, contingent on the present tense continuous action confession! Thus, "If we are confessing our sins, he is faithful and just to already have forgiven us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (The word, "cleanse", there, is also the same tense as, "forgive", but I don't remember him saying that the construction implies the same rendering for it. I would guess it does, though.)