Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
S. Michael Houdmann
Supporter
This topic has been hotly debated within the church for centuries. It is not exaggerating to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel itself. First, let us define the two terms. W...
Login or Sign Up to view the rest of this answer.
Jennifer Rothnie
Supporter
Neither view is correct, as most often defined by man. They are not usually strict premises of themselves [such as God alone saves vs. Man contributes,] but are rather theological buzzwords used from about the 16th century to shorthand a theory (monergism) and a strawman theory (synergism.) As such, the terms themselves must be analyzed and the false dichotomy of the two theories presented before the real topic; salvation; can be studied. Monergism, in theology, is the theory that *because* God alone saves, then God 'must' subsequently bring salvation about by the spiritual regeneration of certain individuals, without their consent or control, so that they may have faith. (In some variations, only irresistible enlightenment is needed.) Note that this is not a premise of itself, but rather a conclusion a couple steps away: Premise: God alone saves (All Christians would agree with this) Premise: If man can choose to be convinced/have faith then he would be participating in his own salvation (Not all Christians agree with this) Conclusion: Man cannot have faith of his own volition. Premise: The Spirit could regenerate man so he could have faith. Conclusion: God must regenerate certain men through the spirit so they will have faith. The above is vastly simplified, but you can see that Monergism is not as simple as the idea "God alone saves". Instead it is a theory developed from that starting point. Synergism is a buzzword usually used to describe how Calvinists perceive any non-Calvinist presentation of salvation; namely that any view contrary to monergism must hold that man contributes to saving himself. As such, it is not a theory people hold of themselves (usually), but rather a "prop" theory to argue against. In the monergist view, claiming sinful man could have faith is equivalent to claiming that man saves himself, at least in part, and hence the idea that man can obey/have faith without prior spiritual regeneration is branded 'synergism'. This is what is known in logic as a "false dichotomy". Two ideas are presented, and one is asked to decide 'either/or'. One is pressured to choose a "side", vs. Examining the actual premise or the definitions involved. Often, these 'sides' are presented by a person who only believes one, and so the view he/she opposes is often a false presentation, a characterization, or presented through a distorted lens. This leads to factions and divisions, as those just beginning to study an issue are told that one idea or another is more Biblical, more spiritual, more humble, etc. This may lead to the further consequence of scripture being redefined or ignored in order to hang onto the chosen theory, and errors become more and more entrenched over time, as the person who has taken a side feels he "must" hold to it, lest he fall into the "even worse" errors of the other side. Some resolve this simply by choosing not to resolve the problem, saying "It's a mystery", or "It's unknowable", and then doing their best not to think about it. Others resolve this, partially, by becoming experts in where the "other side" is wrong. The best resolution is to avoid, as far as possible, the trap that any Biblical concept can be completely summed up by a theory of man or popular buzzword; or that any one person or theory will have all the answers. God alone accomplishes salvation, as man cannot save himself. But what is salvation? Salvation is deliverance. It has connotations both of what one is delivered from (sin, affliction, poverty, captivity, etc.) and of what one is delivered into (righteousness, welfare, prosperity, freedom, etc.) Yet, there is nothing inherent in the concept of salvation that would mean a captive accepting salvation works with the savior to partially save himself. Further eBible topics cover the relationship between faith and salvation. Here is one: https://ebible.com/questions/7882-is-salvation-created-by-faith-or-is-faith-created-by-salvatio
Evan Doan
Supporter
In spite of the fact that monergism/Calvinism has many appealing aspects, it seems to me that few advocates consider some of the logical implications of this particular theological paradigm. First, multiple passages state that God's will is that no one perish: 1 Timothy 2:4 2 Peter 3:9 Ezekiel 18:23 Ezekiel 18:32 Ezekiel 33:11 According to monergism/Calvinism, God chose us instead of us choosing him. That means God deliberately did NOT choose whoever is unfortunate enough to not be elected and receive irresistible grace. If it's God's will that no one perish, then according to Calvinism, it would seem that God is either incompetent or a liar, not to mention unjust and unfair, since the scriptures clearly state that some will be resurrected to eternal condemnation (John 5:29 and Daniel 12:2) while at the same time clearly stating that God's will is that no one perish. Technically, the doctrine of Calvinistic unconditional election would apply to EVERYONE in one of two ways: either one is elected to eternal life or one is elected to eternal condemnation. This is extremely convenient if one finds him/herself elected to eternal life. However, this is a raw deal for one elected to eternal condemnation. How could we say that God is fair if he arbitrarily administers election in this way? If personal responsibility and accountability have nothing to do with this, then how is it that the scriptures declare that God shows no partiality or favoritism (Romans 2:11 and Acts 10:34)? The very concept of justice, which Psalm 89:14 and Psalm 97:2 declare to be the foundation of God's throne, is predicated on individual responsibility and accountability for one's choices. Furthermore, what is love if not freely given by choice? God may grant us the ability to love, but the choice is still ours to make; otherwise it's not authentic love. On a more pragmatic note, nothing about choosing to accept God's salvation and invitation into his kingdom in any way implies that we're effecting our own salvation any more than a drowning man who chooses to grab a rope that someone else throws to him is credited with saving himself. Will he really "boast" that he saved himself simply because he technically made the choice to grab the rope? The person on the riverbank throwing the rope is still the decisive and determining factor in the drowning man's salvation.
Ezekiel Kimosop
Supporter
Is Monergism or Synergism correct? This question is better rephrased: Which between Monergism and Synergism best describes the biblical view of salvation? My view is that neither of the two terminologies perfectly encapsulates the order of salvation in its exhaustive essence as taught in Scripture. The Synergistic view is however closer to the revelation of Scripture, in my view. Monergism attempts to exclusively ascribe the choosing of those to be saved to the operation of God's sovereign grace. It insists that the depraved sinner is unable to come to God unaided and therefore has no responsibility in the salvation process, popularly identified by the Latin acronym Ordo Salutis. Some of the texts of Scripture cited in support of the monergism view include Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 8:29-30, 9:10-13,16:14-15. Monergism is a soteriological feature under Calvinism. Synergism holds that the salvation process involves the operation of God's grace and the cooperation of the sinner in making an informed response to the calling of God in Christ. This is where the synergism concept lies. Synergism recognizes the input of the sinner in the salvation process. Some of the leading Scripture texts cited in this context include John 3:16-17; Acts 2:37-38,16:30-31 and Romans 10:5-13. It is instructive that Monergism and Synergism are theological terms that have been employed in presenting theological theories that may easily pass for the extreme ends of the soteriological continuum - two abstract suppositional analogies that are diametrically opposed. Neither term exhaustively explains the order of salvation in its divine essence as taught in Scripture. Even if, peradventure, it is granted that the two terminologies are theologically admissible for argument sake, the synergistic or non Calvinistic view of salvation as advanced by the Evangelical tradition appears to theologically stand out taller. Whereas salvation was exclusively initiated by God, it is impossible to discount the view that it contemplates the sinner's response or input. My view is that no text or passage of Scripture demonstrates that God forcibly saves sinners against their will or knowledge. Besides, the mornergistic supposition that the sinner's exercise of faith conflates God's sovereignty is theologically untenable, in my view. In His dealing with Israel, God often laments about His people's decision to abandon their covenant and pleads for their return (cf. Judges 2; Hosea 2). This is evidence that God permits men to exercise free will in their dealing with Him. Obedience to God is informed by a free will choice on man's part. This applies to the sinner's dealing with God in Christ. God's condemnation of sinners in Revelation 20:11-15 is evidence that choices have consequences. Ephesians 1:4-5 reveals that God chose us [believers, the church] in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world...having predestined us [believers, the church] to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself..." No sinners could have been chosen outside Calvary. God had determined in His perfect omniscience, foreknowledge and eternal sovereignty, to save sinful men through Christ at His appointed time when His divine clock synchronized with human history. The statement of Ephesians 1:4-5 is evidence of the futuristic projection of what God sought to accomplish through the incarnate coming of Christ. Nothing in the text suggests or implies that the choosing of sinners in Christ was concluded in eternity past! The Calvinistic/Reformed view appears to be intrinsically warped in a theological labyrinth. In its attempt to deny the sinner's responsibility or role in the salvation process, it invariably buttresses and obscures God's revelation of Himself and His offer of salvation being predicated on a free will transaction between God and the sinner. To discount this fact is to deny the revelation and authority of Scripture, in my view.
Add your Answer
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.
- Adhere to the eBible Statement of Faith.
- Your answer should be complete and stand-alone.
- Include supporting arguments, and scripture references if possible. Seek to answer the "why".
- Adhere to a proper tone and spirit of love and understanding.
- For more info see The Complete Guide to eBible