TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 1

Peter M Richardson - MSC#204

TH314 ACS
Dr Brad Harper
25 April 2014
TH314 Term Paper

Soteriology: Monergistic or Synergistic?

Monergism and synergism in soteriology: beneath the veil of theological jargon
lies a debate that really makes a di"erence in how Christians feel about God, them-
selves, and nonbelievers. Holding a stance on this issue changes how a Christian
thinks about their purpose in life and, broadly, how they will conduct themselves as a
church. A great deal hangs on whether God is portrayed as (1) getting glory from both
heavenly praise and hellish wrath or, (2) compassionately entering into the struggles of
free creatures. This issue a"ects where Christians spend their time, money, and energy.
It makes the di"erence between a grief-stricken parent of an unbelieving child I know
who abandoned their faith and another who is more faithful than ever.
First, a denition of terms. Soteriology is the understanding of how sinners are
saved. It refers to the idea that God has chosen not to leave humanity in a state of
1
rebellion and wrath, but has provided a way for reconciliation, through the forgiveness
of sin and the imputation of righteousness. This comes through the work of God the
Son, Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect, sinless life to die a sacricial death, for [God]
could not accept [believers] into fellowship with himself unless the penalty was paid,
2
and rising from the grave to bring salvation forwell, therein lies the rub. Who is
saved? Monergism teaches that those who have been unconditionally predestined
Forster, Greg, The Joy of Calvinism (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), p 15.
1
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1994), p 568.
2
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 2
from eternity past to receive salvation are saved. While synergism teaches that those
who have taken hold of the call to salvation through prevenient grace are saved. Mon-
ergism and synergism both represent certain selections of biblical texts, yet the two
claim mutual exclusivity. So, which one? neither? or both?
First, an important note about the debate as it stands today: the terms moner-
gism and synergism are not necessarily used in conversations over soteriology.
Rather election (monergistic) and foreknowledge (synergistic) are the opposing
terms often used. Since both of these words occur in Scripture in the Greek and He-
brew languages, often their English denition vacillates between a monergistic and
synergistic bent. Communication becomes ambiguous when two di"ering opinions use
the same terms. Thus, neutral and agreeable terms have been coined for clarication in
soteriological study. So, as we see unconditional election or prevenient grace,
know that the authors are not o"-subject, rather they are avoiding a rhetorically volatile
phrasing.

Monergism: God Alone Works to Save Hopelessly Stubborn Sinners.

The etymology of monergism is as follows: the Greek prex mono signies
one, single, or alone while the su#x ergon means to work. Taken together it
means the work of one. Theologically, this means salvation is the work of one party,
3
that being God. Ware says of unconditional election, which is the basis of monergism,
that:
Hendryx, John, A Simple Explanation of Monergism, (Monergism.com, 2007, <http://www.
3
-
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/monergism_simple.html>).
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 3
Unconditional election to salvation may be dened as Gods gracious
choice, made in eternity past, of those whom he would save by faith
through the atoning death of his Son, a choice based not upon anything
that those so chosen would do, or any choice that they would make, or
on how good or bad they might be, or on anything else specically true
about them (i.e., their qualities, characters, decisions, or actions) in con-
trast to others, but based only upon Gods own good pleasure and will.
4

Note the tenor of this denition; Gods choice was gracious in eternity past, Gods
choice was derived from Gods good pleasure and will. Ware takes a compassionate,
tenderhearted tone because the monergist position is often characterized by the hate
of a capricious sovereign and his callous elect. Monergists have become careful to
work against the stereotype.
To highlight the love and grace that monergism exemplies, they point to the
opening remarks in Ephesians, in which predestination (that God designed beforehand
the salvation of the elect) is characterized by love and grace, causing Paul to pen run-
on sentences of adoring praise. Of this passage, Driscoll states that God has chosen
to know you, love you, seek you, forgive you, embrace you, and befriend you! Mirror
5
-
ing Pauls focus, Driscoll demonstrates the joy that comes from having Gods love un-
deservedly poured into the believers life.
Further, monergists direct their gaze on the possibility that God could have justly
awarded every person a death-sentence of wrath, yet in love and grace He made the
way for some to be saved from that deserved and totally fair potential fate. Now, this is
not to say that it is any easier for the monergist to swallow the truth that many will go
to Hell. Rather, viewing soteriology from the monergist perspective is more settling than
Cottrell, Jack, Clark H. Pinnock, Robert L. Reymond, Thomas B. Talbott, Bruce A. Ware, and
4
Chad Brand, Perspectives on Election: Five Views, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006),
p 4.
Driscoll, Mark, Who Do You Think You Are?, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013), p 49.
5
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 4
saying that God failed in his task to save everybody. Forster says that if God desired
universal salvation (a claim of synergists), but does not bring universal salvation (mon-
ergists and synergists agree on this) then the synergist cant justify [their] contention
that God wants to save everybody, and cant even justify [their] contention that God
saves anybody. In contrast to synergism, the monergist position provides logical clar
6
-
ity to the truth that God both desires all be saved but wills di"erently. This is because
God is doing more in creation than simply saving people so they feel nice and comfort-
able (more on this later).
Returning to Wares denition of unconditional election, note that Ware redun-
dantly states the lack of behavioral or moral specicity of Gods grace to save those
whom he would save. Ware does this in relation to the history of the debate. Thus, he
goes on to dene unconditional election as Calvinist in juxtaposition with the Armenian
counterpart, saying that divine election is not based upon or conditioned by the fore-
seen faith of those who will, in time, believe in Christ. A chief distinctive of moner
7
-
gism is the idea that Gods choice had nothing to do with a prediction of which persons
(or group of people) would end up freely choosing to repent throughout human history.
Rather, those that did respond to the gospel did so because they were rst pre-
destined in eternity past to see the light of Jesus while others remain in spiritual blind-
ness, hardened hearts, and eternally stubborn wills. So, rst, the Holy Spirit miracu-
lously intervenes and regenerates the moral will of a person. Second, they inevitably
choose to become a Christian at the appointed time in which Gods design is fullled.
We do not believe in order that we may be born again, we are born again in order that
Forster, p66.
6
Ware, Brand et al., p 5.
7
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 5
we may believe. This soteriological ordering is crucial to monergism. Ware says that
8
apart from [monergistic, miraculous] regeneration, God would see only unbelief as he
looked down the corridors of time.
9
To contrast the synergistic, Armenian model, Forster says that the di"erence be-
tween synergistic foreknowledge and monergistic election is the di"erence between
the man who manufactures life vests and the man who pulls drowning people out of
the water, between the man who makes a scalpel and the man who uses it to cut out a
cancerous tumor and save a patients life. If God simply made salvation possible,
10
but didnt specically save, we have much less reason to worship, adore, and revere
His mighty act of humility and love in sending His Son to die for our sins. Forster goes
on: the Calvinist will not say, Jesus makes salvation available, and then I avail myself
to it, because he sees that this is really the same as saying that Jesus doesnt save us;
indeed, it is just a hairs breadth away from saying that we save ourselves. To the
11
monergist, synergism takes credit from God and places it egotistically on humanity.
While the reader may recognize the level of misrepresentation, keep in mind that both
sides concoct nasty straw-men of the other.
Finally, a few remarks on the scriptural basis of monergism. From the Old Tes
12
-
tament, passages such as Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 14:2; Isaiah 45:5-7, 22;
55:1; Jeremiah 1:5; Amos 3:2a; Jonah 2:9; Psalm 5:4; and 115:1, when considered
Sproul, R.C., Chosen by God, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1986), p 73.
8
Ware, p21. More on the order of salvation in Ware p19-22.
9
Forster, p55.
10
ibid, p60.
11
These references come mostly from Ware pp1-58.
12
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 6
within a monergist soteriology, show that God has chosen Israel - as well as specic
peoples within and without the nation - to be in covenant relationship with Him, a rela-
tionship that brings God alone glory. From the New Testament Gospels, monergists re-
fer to Matthew 11:28; 22:2-14; 25:34; John 1:11-13; 6:37"; 7:37; 17:2, 6, 9, 20, 24; and
Acts 13:46-49 to show that while God does communicate a general call, and does
commission the gospel to all peoples of the world, Jesus was aware of the specic
people who would receive the work of his ministry. The New Testament epistles provide
the most support for monergism. They cite Romans 8:29-30; 9:10-16; 11:5-7; 1
Corinthians 1:26-31; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2:8-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:8-9; 1
Peter 1:20; 2:9; 1 John 2:29; 4:7; 5:1; Revelations 13:8; and 22:17 to show that God
has predestined his elect by grace, miraculously working regeneration in their hearts,
so that they will be saved, receive the Holy Spirit, and live to glorify God through their
changed lives; a plan fully realized and perfected in the eschaton.

Synergism: Prevenient Grace Allows Anyone to Respond to the Gospel.

This section, being shorter than the monergism explanation, will respond to ar-
guments raised above and bring several allegations toward the monergists into the
light. By way of introduction, a central idea within synergism is that "God not only acts
but reacts." Furthermore, Pinnock et al. hold that "above all, God is love, and there
13
-
fore expresses his power, not by having to control everything like an oriental despot,
but by giving humanity salvation and eternal life under the conditions of mutuality."
14
Pinnock, Clark, The Grace of God and the Will of Man, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House,
13
1995), p x.
ibid, p xi.
14
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 7
This is to say that God's sovereignty is not limited by conditional salvation. Rather,
God's characteristic love is exemplied in his gracious agreement to work with his cre-
ation to make salvation freely available. Since God sets the terms and conditions of
this agreement, he absolutely retains sovereign power.
The monergists criticize synergism for being anthropocentric in stealing glory
from God and giving it to man for choosing, and thus earning, salvation. Synergism re-
sponds with the doctrines of human depravity and prevenient grace. Beginning with
the sin condition, Arminius and Classical Arminians:
held that the human will has been so corrupted by sin that a person can-
not seek grace without the enablement of grace. They thereby a#rmed
the necessity of grace in redemption. Grace must go before a person's
response to the gospel. This suggests that Arminianism is closer to Semi-
Augustianism than it is to Sami-Pelagianism or Pelagianism.
15

Their view is still synergistic, but all 100% of the glory and credit goes to God alone.
Note that this statement is quoted from two Calvinists in their explanation and refuta-
tion of Arminianism, yet still, the concession must be made that Arminius is not igno-
rant or easily toppled. Even still, Olson says that "some critics appear to be charmed
by an unexamined assumption that any synergistic soteriology is automatically human-
istic and is based on an optimistic view of humans and their spiritual abilities." Syner
16
-
gism is not the straw man it is made out to be, as Classical Arminianism shows, it easi-
ly explains the biblical evidence and can even satisfy the philosophical necessities
posed by staunch monergists. Not all Arminians t into this category in their under-
Robert A Peterson and Michael D Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, Ill:
15
InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 39
Olsen, Roger E, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity
16
Press, 2006), p. 143
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 8
standing of the human condition, but Classical Arminianism certainly is not a rogue po-
sition within the group.
Second, the term "prevenient" grace. Often misunderstood or completely ig-
nored by monergists, prevenient grace is a powerful but resistible drawing of God that
precedes faith.
Anyone who shows the rst inkling or inclination of a good will tower God
is already being inuenced by grace. Grace is the rst cause of genuine
free will as liberation from bondage to sin, and grace is the source of any-
thing good.
17

Olson defends the traditional Arminian position of prevenient grace. While at

times it is di#cult to discern the di"erence between prevenient grace and e"ectual call-
ing, the distinction is this: prevenient grace can be rejected by the free will. Also, when
one responds to prevenient grace, they simply allow that work of God to stir them,
rather than stepping out and willing it themselves. In this way, synergism does not steal
glory, credit, or work from God. Rather, a person cooperates with God by receiving the
grace given.
A phrase seen often in synergist literature is mankind's "signicant freedom."
The basis for human freedom stems from Scripture, theology, philosophy, and basic
human experience. In this way, synergism places the burden of proof for determinism
upon the monergists, as their view does not come naturally. The monergists attempt to
integrate free will into their theology of divine sovereignty, but their supposed "free-
dom" is limited to the point of uselessness. The synergists, left unconvinced, birthed
the phrase "signicant freedom" in response.
ibid, p. 161
17
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 9
Even still, total moral freedom is biblically a hard sell. Evans points out the mid-
dle ground in his analysis of Kierkegaard, saying that:
[it is helpful to distinguish between] two kinds of freedom: formal and ma-
terial...to say that a person is free in the formal sense is to say that on
some occasions he has the ability to choose from more than one alterna-
tive [although some alternatives carry a stronger tendency to be
chosen]...Material freedom is the ability of a person to choose what God
wishes her to choose, in the manner God wishes the choice be made.
18

So, since we all happened to have chosen to sin in the rst place (debates regarding
original sin and total depravity aside), and because doing so violates our material free-
dom, this moral failure leads inevitably to a limitation in formal freedom for one's entire
life. Every potential decision is altered by the fact that it has been preceded by sin,
which only encourages more sin from a practical standpoint, with the increase of moral
degradation as the days pass on. For the synergist, the will to choose God is even still
possible, yet they admit it requires the exertion of a great e"ort of will.
Next, regarding predestination, there are actually many synergistic views regard-
ing predestination. Some synergists abandon the entire issue, while others embrace
the term - with their own nuanced use. Cotrell formulates the classical Armenian deni-
tion of predestination: "before the world ever existed God conditionally predestined
some specic individuals to eternal life and the rest to condemnation, based on his
foreknowledge of their freewill responses to his law and to his grace." His stance
19
supports conditional foreknowledge, individual election, and reprobation. Yet, other
Arminians hold to corporate, not individual, election; they use terms like "class" pre-
destination and "plan" predestination. Wesley argues against conceptions of predesti-
Evans and Pinnock p185
18
Cotrell, Brand, et al., p 72.
19
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 10
nation which involve reprobation, saying: "the doctrine of predestination is not a doc-
trine of God." He goes on, referring to the biblical support of predestination, saying
20
"whatever the Scripture proves, it can never prove this...for there are many scriptures
the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in
victory. So, predestination is not universally dened within synergism, but its biblical
21
basis is of course a#rmed by all synergists.

Evaluation: One, the Other, Both, or Neither?

Once the straw men of both categories have been removed and the arguments
considered, the Christian is left with a di#cult, if not impossible dilemma. Both sides
use strong biblical support using airtight exegesis. Both appeal to philosophical issues
raised by practical Christian living. Both sides have a rich history of theological sup-
port. Both sides also have dangerous pitfalls. Both sides have published ignorant cri-
tiques of the other. Both sides have proponents who are less than admirable to an
earnest student of soteriology. Furthermore, both arguments stand opposed to one an-
other, forcing a choice on anyone who has considered the topic at any length.
All things considered, if one were to refer back to the Scripture list that is used
by monergists, this time reading with a synergistic mindset, they would nd compelling
arguments on the Arminian front as they formerly did from the Calvinist. If one were to
seek their own biblical denition of key terms like calling, predestination, election,
gracethey would be hard pressed to fall on one side or the other. If one thinks philo-
Wesley, John, Albert Cook Outler, and Richard P. Heitzenrater, John Wesley's Sermons: An
20
Anthology, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991), p 52
ibid. pp 57-58.
21
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 11
sophically about the competing theologies, they may strongly desire an integration of
the two models, knowing they could never rationally satisfy their dissonance.
Returning back to my introduction, I mentioned two grieving parents of unbeliev-
ing adult children; one who abandoned their faith and the other who is more faithful
than ever. The former prayed ceaselessly for the salvation of his son, Matt, who in high
school stopped going to church, stopped identifying as a Christian, and became an
agnostic. He believed that his son had rejected the grace of God. Since his son never
did turn around, this man decided that if God existed, he would have acted in such a
way as to save his son. Seeing no evidence, he also stopped going to church, stopped
identifying as a Christian, and became an agnostic. His synergistic soteriology led him
to say that Christians worship an impotent god. On the other hand, the latter father has
a son, Tony, who walked away from his Christian roots in college. His father prayed fer-
vently for him, to see the gospel and enjoy Gods grace. Yet, no such change hap-
pened. Because of his steadfast monergistic soteriology, he knew that God was abso-
lutely sovereign and good to either work in the heart of his beloved son for salvation, or
allow him to continue to perdition. His faith in Gods goodness grew through this trial.
These two men do not represent the entirety of their soteriological camps. In-
stead they illustrate a ner distinction between opposing views. The rst man repre-
sents synergists who selshly exalt themselves to a place of responsibility in their sal-
vation as well as monergists who simply despise nonbelievers as enemies of Christ
(due to personal pride). These people write books attacking one another in strife and
dissension, yet they really are one in the same. The second man represents monergists
who hope in the goodness and glory of God as both Savior and Judge as well as syn-
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 12
ergists who recognize the complete dependance they must have on their gracious
Friend and sovereign King. These people tend to write books that illustrate their posi-
tion as reasonable, earnest, and respectful of God and their opponents. Whichever
side they fall on, I would much rather listen to, read, and converse with this crowd than
the staunch, egotistical group on the fringes of theological conversation. I personally
hold that one would nd logical clarity, biblical insight, and increased love for their Sav-
ior if they read Arminius and other traditional (Classical) Arminians such as Roger E Ol-
son or Calvin and other reasonable Calvinists such as Greg Forster.
TH314 Term Paper Richardson, PM 13
Works Cited:
Cottrell, Jack, Clark H. Pinnock, Robert L. Reymond, Thomas B. Talbott, Bruce A.
Ware, and Chad Brand. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman, 2006. Print.
Driscoll, Mark. Who Do You Think You Are?: Finding Your True Identity in Christ. Nash-
ville: Thomas Nelson, 2013. Print.
Forster, Greg. The Joy of Calvinism: Knowing God's Personal, Unconditional, Irre-
sistible, Unbreakable Love. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity, 1994. Print.
Hendryx, John. "A Simple Explanation of Monergism." Monergism.com, 26 Mar. 2007.
Web. 02 May 2014. <http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/
monergism_simple.html>.
Pinnock, Clark H. The Grace of God and the Will of Man. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany
House, 1995. Print.
Sproul, R. C. Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1986. Print.
Wesley, John, Albert Cook Outler, and Richard P. Heitzenrater. John Wesley's Sermons:
An Anthology. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991. Print.