The term “Synergism” is an accusation (unfounded) against those with whom those of the reformed position disagrees with in regards to salvation of man. In looking at varying definitions from sources such as monergism.com and Alpha and Omega ministries the writing on this was unnecessarily divisive so I will sum it up in my own words. It is believed by those who call themselves monergists that when synergism is used in the theological context it is a reference to the belief that man works synergistically with God to obtain salvation. If man is required to choose to respond to God’s offer of salvation without first having been regenerated then this is viewed as cooperating with God to effect man’s salvation. In other words it gives man and God equal responsibility in the final outcome of man being saved. This is in complete error and conflates man’s choice to believe with God’s choice to save.
There are several problems with this. First, since God devised, set into motion, and determined the boundaries for man’s responsibility to respond to God’s offer of salvation (John 1:12-13) it leaves His sovereignty in tact and robs man of any merit or claim on his own salvation. Man did not decide that the Father would send His Son as a sacrifice on our behalf, God did (John 3:16). Man did not decide that the preaching of the gospel would be the element that would open man’s heart to God, God did Romans 1:16). Man did not decide that if man calls upon the Lord he would be saved, God did (Romans 10:13). Man did not decide that man would be the agent to deliver the gospel to the lost, God did (Romans 10:15; Matthew 28:18-20). Given these facts, it is understood that only God has the power, authority, and ability to save man. Man’s response, being necessary (Romans 10:13) and decided by God (John1:13), is not a meritorious factor.
In Roman 6:23 God calls salvation a gift. It is a gift given to fallen man who desperately needs salvation. How are gifts given? Do we give gifts to those who do not want them? Do we give gifts to those who do not reach out and receive them? How does one receive the gift offered? We all know the answer which is reach out with our hands and take hold of it and take possession. Once someone reaches out and receives the gift, do we then say the receiver of the gift also took part in giving himself the gift, because he reached out (works) and took possession of it? Of course not! Neither should the one who hears the gospel and chooses to believe and calls out to God (Romans 10:9-13).
Man hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, and receiving the gospel is in fact, not cooperating but simply taking possession of what is being offered. If we do not say that the receiving of worldly gifts is all part of the giving of those gifts then it is completely inconsistent to say the opposite when it comes to salvation.
Further, I would add that in either one of the sources I have listed, which I believe to represent the vast majority of reformed doctrine, is the actual power of salvation mentioned (Romans 1:16). We will find, and those authors well know, that in Romans 1 the power of salvation is the gospel. It is no where mentioned, anywhere in scripture, that the power of salvation is being regenerated first. I believe that when this subject comes up the power of salvation should always be included. But let me tell you what does get included from not all but far too many in this reformed crowd. Snide, backhanded, insults. Examples:
1. “To put it simply, synergism is the belief that faith is produced by our unregenerated human nature...”[1]
Now, no one believes that and no one claims that. In other words it is a strawman. See when you leave out and important part of this discussion like Romans 1:16 then you can more easily lob false accusations such as that. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent and informed it leaves the conclusion that such accusations are intentional regardless of the lack of integrity it takes to do so. The response to objections to such false accusations are found at the Alpha and Omega web page where it is said:
2. “Many people do not like being labeled “Arminian” (e.g. “I am neither Calvinist or Arminian!) The reality, however, is their theology functions synergistically. Thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe. At the end of the day, they are Arminian, whether they like it or not.”[2]
So this is a type of typical response that is often thrown out much like a projectile from an M16 rifle. They are right in how they characterize someone else’ position. They get to set the narrative about someone else’ position. And if someone else doesn’t agree with it or like it to bad so sad maybe one of these days you will be honest about your own position. In fact I have heard that very thing time and time again on this board.
It seems that discussions on this board have been more of a blood sport than people reasoning through doctrine and sharing their positions. It is all about beating the other down and winning the debate. If you refuse to engage in that blood sport by pulling away from someone who goes down that path then you are labeled as ignoring because you have been proven wrong. If you reword your position in order to give clarification then you are labeled as walking back your original position.
The truth is that mischaracterizing someone else’ position to fit your demonization of it is slanderous, it is ungodly, and should have no place in our discussions. The term synergism is not representative of a great many people and it is slanderous to insist it is.
[1] Synergism | Monergism
[2] Synergism | Alpha and Omega Ministries
There are several problems with this. First, since God devised, set into motion, and determined the boundaries for man’s responsibility to respond to God’s offer of salvation (John 1:12-13) it leaves His sovereignty in tact and robs man of any merit or claim on his own salvation. Man did not decide that the Father would send His Son as a sacrifice on our behalf, God did (John 3:16). Man did not decide that the preaching of the gospel would be the element that would open man’s heart to God, God did Romans 1:16). Man did not decide that if man calls upon the Lord he would be saved, God did (Romans 10:13). Man did not decide that man would be the agent to deliver the gospel to the lost, God did (Romans 10:15; Matthew 28:18-20). Given these facts, it is understood that only God has the power, authority, and ability to save man. Man’s response, being necessary (Romans 10:13) and decided by God (John1:13), is not a meritorious factor.
In Roman 6:23 God calls salvation a gift. It is a gift given to fallen man who desperately needs salvation. How are gifts given? Do we give gifts to those who do not want them? Do we give gifts to those who do not reach out and receive them? How does one receive the gift offered? We all know the answer which is reach out with our hands and take hold of it and take possession. Once someone reaches out and receives the gift, do we then say the receiver of the gift also took part in giving himself the gift, because he reached out (works) and took possession of it? Of course not! Neither should the one who hears the gospel and chooses to believe and calls out to God (Romans 10:9-13).
Man hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, and receiving the gospel is in fact, not cooperating but simply taking possession of what is being offered. If we do not say that the receiving of worldly gifts is all part of the giving of those gifts then it is completely inconsistent to say the opposite when it comes to salvation.
Further, I would add that in either one of the sources I have listed, which I believe to represent the vast majority of reformed doctrine, is the actual power of salvation mentioned (Romans 1:16). We will find, and those authors well know, that in Romans 1 the power of salvation is the gospel. It is no where mentioned, anywhere in scripture, that the power of salvation is being regenerated first. I believe that when this subject comes up the power of salvation should always be included. But let me tell you what does get included from not all but far too many in this reformed crowd. Snide, backhanded, insults. Examples:
1. “To put it simply, synergism is the belief that faith is produced by our unregenerated human nature...”[1]
Now, no one believes that and no one claims that. In other words it is a strawman. See when you leave out and important part of this discussion like Romans 1:16 then you can more easily lob false accusations such as that. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent and informed it leaves the conclusion that such accusations are intentional regardless of the lack of integrity it takes to do so. The response to objections to such false accusations are found at the Alpha and Omega web page where it is said:
2. “Many people do not like being labeled “Arminian” (e.g. “I am neither Calvinist or Arminian!) The reality, however, is their theology functions synergistically. Thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe. At the end of the day, they are Arminian, whether they like it or not.”[2]
So this is a type of typical response that is often thrown out much like a projectile from an M16 rifle. They are right in how they characterize someone else’ position. They get to set the narrative about someone else’ position. And if someone else doesn’t agree with it or like it to bad so sad maybe one of these days you will be honest about your own position. In fact I have heard that very thing time and time again on this board.
It seems that discussions on this board have been more of a blood sport than people reasoning through doctrine and sharing their positions. It is all about beating the other down and winning the debate. If you refuse to engage in that blood sport by pulling away from someone who goes down that path then you are labeled as ignoring because you have been proven wrong. If you reword your position in order to give clarification then you are labeled as walking back your original position.
The truth is that mischaracterizing someone else’ position to fit your demonization of it is slanderous, it is ungodly, and should have no place in our discussions. The term synergism is not representative of a great many people and it is slanderous to insist it is.
[1] Synergism | Monergism
[2] Synergism | Alpha and Omega Ministries
