What do Monergism and Synergism mean and why are they important?

[Reformed]

In a recently closed thread, there was some pushback on one of these terms. I believe it helps to understand them because they define a belief system without the baggage that comes with Calvinism and Arminianism. For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to provide a definition of both positions.

Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. 1

"In theology, [monergism is] the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration [the new birth] - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated [born again], and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration." 2

Another way of saying it that Synergists believe that man cooperates with God in salvation, whereas Monergists posit that God is sovereign in salvation independent of any action from man. Both positions are self-evident in the way both sides describe how justification takes place. Synergists believe that God does call the sinner, but the sinner has the ability to accept or reject the Gospel offer of salvation. Monergists believe that any action by man is taken only after God has sovereignly regenerated the sinner. Commonly we call Synergists "Arminians" and Monergists "Calvinists", but those terms carry a lot of baggage and often shut down discussion. Monergism and Synergism are more clinical terms and seem to lower the temperature a bit which leads to more constructive discussion.

Why do certain people avoid any attempt to define what they believe on this important theological topic? We have all seen it. Certain people push back on any attempt to pin themselves down to any system of belief. "I'm not an Arminian!" even though they believe that man's free will is integral to the salvation process. "I'm not a Calvinist!" even though they believe free will plays no part in the salvation process. If we cannot be honest about what we believe, how can we expect to be taken seriously in any theological discussion? We see politicians do this all the time. They equivocate and seldom take a firm position on anything. Very few are honest about what they believe. In the quest to uncover the truth, we should act differently.

1. Taken from Theopedia
2. Taken from Monergism.com

 

[BobRyan]

Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. 1

"In theology, [monergism is] the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration [the new birth] - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated [born again], and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration." 2

Another way of saying it that Synergists believe that man cooperates

More specifically Synergists believe God is "powerful enough" and "sovereign enough" to cause even the unregenerate lost person to be "enabled" to choose and to respond to the supernatural drawing of God by the Holy Spirit -- and that given such "ability" in inclination and choice - the lost person may freely choose salvation or reject it without being limited to the 'does not desire salvation' position alone. Most still choose rebellion and living-for-self -- but some choose death-to-self and eternal life.

Thus "He came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

In Synergism you can have "What more COULD I have DONE that I have not already Done" Isaiah 5:4 as a lament by God.

In Synergism you can have "O will you die? Turn to Me and LIVE" as an appeal by God.
In Synergism you can have "we BEG YOU on behalf of Christ - be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5

In Monergism "He came to His OWN His sovereignly selected OWN - and of course they received Him just as the Holy Spirit programmed them to do". It is pure "arbitrary selection" of the "FEW" of Matt 7 without any cooperation or input at all from the lost as to "choice".

 

[Revmitchell]

First I disagree with the given definition. Both are based on Calvinist presupposition. Second the label is a label not a definition.

 

[Revmitchell]

What I cannot. Understand is the inability to discuss these issues without these labels. It makes no sense other than cals want to control the debate based on their presuppositions. They struggle to discuss these issues without them. My understanding of scripture does not get defined by Calvinists so sorry for your difficulty

 

[TCassidy]

The theological definitions of both Monergism and Synergism are well and long established. If the shoe fits, don't go away barefoot.

If a person believes his salvation is all of God and none of him he is a Monergist.

If a person believes he must do something, believe, repent, obey, pray a prayer, walk the aisle, commit his life to Christ, or any other like thing, he is a Synergist.

 

[Rippon]

The theological definitions of both Monergism and Synergism are well and long established. If the shoe fits, don't go away barefoot.

I love that line. I never heard it before.

If a person believes his salvation is all of God and none of him he is a Monergist.

If a person believes he must do something, believe, repent, obey, pray a prayer, walk the aisle, commit his life to Christ, or any other like thing, he is a Synergist.

Amen.

 

[HankD]

If there were no difficulties with either side then this unending debate (and sometimes worse) would not be ongoing and perhaps apart from the political forums so VERY popular, also divisive.

But here is are two incidents which can be used on their appropriate "sides" to attempt to prove the point of each (appropriately).

6 So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

Why does God say these words to Cain if He knows perfectly well is totally depraved?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.

Same as above.

OTH (a passage a Greek scholar called "The bolt from the Johannine Blue")

Matthew 11;27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Why does God say these words to Cain if He knows perfectly well is totally depraved?

Fellowship, not relationship.

Same as above.

Same as above.

 

[HankD]

Fellowship, not relationship.

Same as above.

Dr. Tom, how did I know you would chime in!?

HankD

 

[Reformed]

What I cannot. Understand is the inability to discuss these issues without these labels. It makes no sense other than cals want to control the debate based on their presuppositions. They struggle to discuss these issues without them. My understanding of scripture does not get defined by Calvinists so sorry for your difficulty

You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out. That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things? You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object. We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing. I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[HankD]

You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out. That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things? You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object. We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing. I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.

Agreed.

I don't like them either but I use them.

I don't like going to the dentist, but I go


HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out.

I don't want your labels. if you are going to describe what I believe then you need to do it the way I do or your description is in error.

That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things?

You are now being silly and over exaggerating.

You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object.

Again I do not want your labels that are descriptions based on your presuppositions.

We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing.

I am not fearful of that either. I never said I was fearful so your accusation is just false.Again another label (fearful) I never claimed to have. Neither is it the only option. It does help with your demonization.

I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.

If the people that you assign them to do not agree then no they are not accurate. Further it is disrespectful and only create animosity. it hurts reasonable discussion not furthers it. If you and anyone else is going to have a continued discussion you do not get to set the boundaries for that discussion all by yourself. You must both agree to terms. Cals want to set the boundaries (i.e. what the characterizations and labels are to be) and then demonize anyone who will not accept them. And around here cals dog pile on anyone who will not agree to cal boundaries.

In the end you guys do not want reasonable discussion you want to be right and defeat others with whom you disagree. These discussions are all about win and lose and you guys are willing to do anything to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE]

 

[Revmitchell]

The theological definitions of both Monergism and Synergism are well and long established. If the shoe fits, don't go away barefoot.

If a person believes his salvation is all of God and none of him he is a Monergist.

If a person believes he must do something, believe, repent, obey, pray a prayer, walk the aisle, commit his life to Christ, or any other like thing, he is a Synergist.

I don't care how long Cals have been using these incorrect labels. That is not justification. Jehova's witnesses have been around a long time as well. Length of time does not make one correct.

 

[Revmitchell]

Agreed.

I don't like them either but I use them.

I don't like going to the dentist, but I go


HankD

Why don't you like them?

 

[Sapper Woody]

I typically avoid the Cal/Arm forum because of the toxicity levels, but I feel I have something to add to this conversation. The issue that people take with the labels is that they are, in and of themselves, strawmen. For instance:

You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will.... I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.

I don't know of a single Arminian/Non-Cal that has ever said God CANNOT save someone unless they exercise their free will. However, I have heard many who have said that God CHOOSES this way.

Then:

Synergism, in general, may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently. 1

Another way of saying it that Synergists believe that man cooperates with God in salvation,

While I'm sure that there are Synergists out there, no Non-Cal that I know believes this, and therefore are not Synergists. I know the typical Cal comeback to this is that accepting the free gift is Synergism. By your definition, maybe. But not by ours.

And so, purposefully ascribing a rejected label to someone is at best inflammatory, yet more often derogatory. If a productive discussion or debate is to ever take place, then the use of rejected labels cannot happen. Otherwise all you get is argument of labels, rather than discussion of important topics.

On my part, I've tried to look into Calvinism before (and some of you can verify this off the cuff, others can look at my thread history) with a genuine interest in learning what Calvinists/Reformed believe from them, and not from a non-Cal. However, both sides are unwilling to have a discussion, and the threads almost instantly devolved into a toxic sludge. (Note: I am not assigning blame to one side or the other, just pointing out that it happened.)

For any productive discussion to take place, there must be a meeting of the minds. Not a compromise, but an understanding and mutuality of terms and labels. Outside of this, nothing will get done in this forum. I'd love to see an amicable discussion of Cal/Arm, and I think it would be edifying to both sides. But outside a one-on-one discussion, I do not think it is possible.

And frankly, the OP is a prime example of why. It started off inflammatory and with a strawman. As long as disdain is shown by both sides, neither is going to be edified.

 

[Revmitchell]

And so, purposefully ascribing a rejected label to someone is at best inflammatory, yet more often derogatory. If a productive discussion or debate is to ever take place, then the use of rejected labels cannot happen. Otherwise all you get is argument of labels, rather than discussion of important topics.

This is exactly true, however it at least appears there is no interest in doing any different because if they get to set the terms and the boundaries for the discussion then they have the argument won before it ever gets going. As you said a strawman. I have on several occasions started threads giving my positions on some of these topics between cals and myself with no response from anyone.

And frankly, the OP is a prime example of why. It started off inflammatory and with a strawman. As long as disdain is shown by both sides, neither is going to be edified.

yep

 

[TCassidy]

I know the typical Cal comeback to this is that accepting the free gift is Synergism. By your definition, maybe. But not by ours.

"Accepting" is a verb. Something you do that results, at least in part, in your Salvation. That is the very essence of Synergism.

On my part, I've tried to look into Calvinism before (and some of you can verify this off the cuff, others can look at my thread history) with a genuine interest in learning what Calvinists/Reformed believe from them, and not from a non-Cal.

So I would be excluded from the discussion because I, as a 5 pointer, eschew both of the terms Calvinism and Reformed?

Not a compromise, but an understanding and mutuality of terms and labels.

But you keep using the terms I have not agreed to. Is the right to reject such labels granted only to one side of the discussion?

I'd love to see an amicable discussion of Cal/Arm, and I think it would be edifying to both sides.

But what if I, a 5 point Particular Baptist, refuses both labels Calvinism and Arminianism?

 

[Sapper Woody]

I'm not responding to the first part of your quote, because it's not my desire to debate the words themselves, only discuss the use of the labels, and how they detract from any meaningful conversation.

So I would be excluded from the discussion because I, as a 5 pointer, eschew both of the terms Calvinism and Reformed?

But you keep using the terms I have not agreed to. Is the right to reject such labels granted only to one side of the discussion?

But what if I, a 5 point Particular Baptist, refuses both labels Calvinism and Arminianism?

Your response reinforces my point. If I were to discuss with you what you believed, and insisted that you were a Calvinist, and kept calling you a Calvinist despite your rejection of that label, I would be doing exactly what the OP is attempting to do. Instead of getting down to a meaningful discussion of beliefs, I'd be doing several things.

1. I'd be producing animosity by trying to force you into a label you reject.
2. I'd be using a strawman by stating that you believed something you didn't (by saying you were a Calvinist when you are not)
3. I'd be keeping the focus of the discussion away from what should be discussed and would instead keep it on a term or label.

I think a lot more would get accomplished if people would discuss what they believe and support it rather than trying to tell the "other side" what that side believes.

 

[Revmitchell]

mmmmmmmm

 

[TCassidy]

1. I'd be producing animosity by trying to force you into a label you reject.

But that is my point. People on this form call me a Calvinist all the time. I don't bother to correct them. The term, even though it is wrong, is a common short hand term for the 5 Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. It would be silly (not to mention a bit childish) of me to object to the term when it is being used in a way that is compatible with what I believe.

2. I'd be using a strawman by stating that you believed something you didn't (by saying you were a Calvinist when you are not)

But that is the point. It is not the label. It is the doctrinal understanding behind the label.

3. I'd be keeping the focus of the discussion away from what should be discussed and would instead keep it on a term or label.

But without labels, how could you discuss the issues?

Above I said I was a "5 pointer." That is a label that effectively identifies the starting point for our discussion. Without that label how could we even start the discussion?

This is the objection Reformed made to Revmitchels rejection of the word "Synergist." But while rejecting the word, he refuses to define what exactly he believes.

While I eschew the word Calvinist I am more than willing to state what I believe, without equivocation. And that is the problem. By complaining about the label, without explaining WHY he refuses the label, there is no place to start the discussion.