Skan, I understand how that you are saying that faith is not meriting salvation. Actually, as you rightly point out the two sides do not differ much on faith itself. However, we do seem to differ on the source of faith. As I understand your view (please correct me if I am misstating your view) man's faith is stirred by the prevenient grace which is given to many men (all?) Some men reject that prevenient grace and do not put their faith in Christ and are condemned for it. Others, put their faith in Christ and God credits that (non meritorious) faith for righteousness and saves him. So, in this sense man is saved by a faith that is stirred by the prevenient grace of God, but it is inherent in him and a part of his human nature. In other words all men have the ability when stirred by the grace of God to respond positively in faith. Some choose not to by their "libertarian free will" (not controlled or influenced by their sin nature and therefore neutral due to prevenient grace) The source of the faith itself, however is all of man and is a natural part of man. The faith is not meriting salvation, it is simply the required and missing ingredient which God needs/wants/requires before he will save the man. In other words God does something (Saves him) after man does something (believes)
Question: after the man is saved do you believe the saving faith continues as it was when he was dead as a natural part of him, or do you believe it is changed somehow when a man is saved? I am assuming you believe that that faith which is accounted for righteousness must continue in his new life in Christ.
A key difference in the two basic positions is that the difference between a lost man who believes and a lost man who rejects the gospel lies solely in the man himself. Both men receive the stirrings of prevenient grace. Both men have the ability to choose faith. Regardless of calling it meritorious or not, one does something very very bad (rejects the gospel) and one does something very very good (accepts the gospel and believes) and God has nothing to do with the difference. In this sense, the "synergist" position makes man responsible for his own salvation. I didn't say it makes man save himself, because God does the saving, but the responsibility is solely man's. In one system God is the determiner and "difference maker" in an individuals salvation and in the other man is the determiner and difference maker in his salvation. In one system man must choose God (first) in order to be saved by grace, in the other God must choose man (first) by grace. In one view God's will can only be accomplished through the free choice of man and God can (and does) only do so much. In one system a dead man must choose to live and a dead man responds first then lives. In the other view the dead man is made alive by grace being alive, responds by grace through a living faith.
With respect to the Doctrines of Grace faith is also accounted as righteousness. Faith is also the response of man, and it is also a requirement (but not a cause) of salvation. In other words life comes through faith but is not the cause of it. God is the cause of it through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and the meritorious work of Jesus. Man's faith is also accounted for righteousness. Man also responds in faith and non meritoriously does something. The difference is that man does something (believes) after something is done to him (regeneration). In this view repentance and faith are inseparable graces both accompanying salvation and both "acquired" by grace alone. In other words true repentance and saving faith are attributes or fruits of a living and changed heart (I am sure you know this fact to be a scriptural view whether or not you agree with the Doctrines of Grace ie. Gal 5:22) Because of this understanding we also understand that a dead man cannot have saving faith. If he did he would not be a dead man. Just as there is no life without faith, there is no faith without life. If you have a man being regenerated on the basis of or in response to his faith do you then have him possessing true saving faith for a time without possessing life?
The whole point of the monergism/synergism dichotomy is not so much about whether faith is meritorious, but that man "cooperates" in his salvation effectually through a faith that arises within himself. The cooperation is in that the response of faith is not motivated according to the election of God, but solely by his free choice. While God does all the heavy lifting, there is a key salvific role on man's part that stands outside the work of God. This independent role is what makes it synergistic.
As a practical matter though, we both believe that when a Philippian jailer asks us "what must I do to be saved" the theologically, soteriologically, evangelistically, biblically correct response to him is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." None of us say "come back when you have been regenerated and I will tell you." None of us say "Its not up to you so don't even think about it. If your elect you'll be saved and if you're not, there's nothing anybody can do for you." I don't believe any of us on either side think that if we can trick somebody into saying a "sinners prayer" regardless of their understanding of it, conviction of sin, or any kind of concern for their soul, if we can get them to say it we can count the nose and start collecting the nickel. If we take either position then we are in grievous practical error and regardless of the truth of our soteriology we cease to be the means by which men are saved and become another instrument for their destruction.
