The Narrow Path Ministries

"Monergism" and "synergism" are theological terms that have been in use since the Reformation. The earliest date they were used, that I have been able to find, is from about 1660 in Lutheran circles. Reconciling God's sovereignty and man's responsibility: "What part does God play? and What part do individuals play?" in the process of conversion were the issues; issues that are still debated today.

Monergism: "one work" or "one working alone"
(from Gk, MONO "one" and ERGOS "work").

Synergism: "work with" or "working together"
(Gk, SYN "with" and ERGOS "work").

MONERGISTS
Calvinists, Lutherans, and/or those in the Reformed tradition are monergists: They believe conversion is the result of "God working alone." Martin Luther wrote: "I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him."

Calvinists believe "dead men can do nothing" (which is essentially the same thing Luther said, above, in terms of total inability to come to Christ). In Calvinism, God: predestines the elect (decides who will be saved), calls and regenerates them (calls "irresistably" and gives them new birth), gives them saving faith (Calvinists see "saving faith" as a "gift of grace" in, and of, itself), and the ability of the human will to respond to Himself. God "assists" the human will only in the sense of enabling it to be able to respond to the Divine Will at all, which it cannot do in any way without God's activity (work). As you can see, "God works alone" in this entire process of conversion, according to (monergistic) Calvinist thought.

SYNERGISTS
*Note: Many, if not most, Calvinists inist you HAVE to be one or the other (monergist or synergist).
Yet monergism and synergism are essentially Calvinistic or Reformed doctrines. Synergism, from the Reformed perspective, is false; Monergism is true.

Synergists, by strict definition, would be those who believe conversion is the result of "working together with God." Non-Calvinists often use the illustration of a gift being offered. Gifts are "free" but they have to be received: If someone hands you a hundred dollar bill you do not have to take it. Since Calvinists do not believe an unregenerate person can have faith (regeneration precedes faith, you cannot have any faith until after you are born again); they accuse non-Calvinists of "working" for their salvation. They further define synergism with God merely "assisting" in conversion while the person "cooperates."

Q&As for clarification

Q: Is receiving the gift of salvation a work?
Monergist: No. Salvation is God's work from start to finish, beginning with regeneration; after which, we also receive the gift of faith.
Non-Calvinist: No. But faith is the condition I have to meet in order to receive it. Faith is not a work, it is trust.
Monergist: But that's 'synergism' because you said you had to 'do' something; that's 'works!'
Non-Calvinist: I did not die for my sins, Christ did. This I believe. If you consider my trust in Him to save a "work" you are quite mistaken.
Monergist: 'Your trust.' 'Your trust.' 'Your trust.' Synergism!
Non-Calvinist: Christ died for the sins of the world. You somehow think I participated in His work on the cross?
Monergist: You think you have to have faith in Him to be saved. But no one can even have faith until AFTER they are born again! Synergism!

Q: I'm holding a Christmas present out to you. Is it necessary for you to reach out and take it in order to receive it?
Monergist: This question is unfair because "Dead men can do nothing." God doesn't offer gifts in the ways people do.
Non-Calvinist: Yes, it would be necessary for me to take the gift in order to possess it, lol. God gives gifts just like people do. They're free!
Monergist: That's 'synergism.'
Non-Calvinist: How so?
Monergist: Because you had to 'do' something to get the gift.
Non-Calvinist: I suppose you are kind of right in an oblique and indirect way. I would be 'doing something' by taking it. But that would have nothing to do with my earning or working for it. After all, it is free for the taking. I didn't manufacture, purchase, or wrap the present, or merit it in any way.
Monergist: You believe in salvation by works!
Non-Calvinist: ...........(sigh).................

This should get the ball rolling............................Thanks, Rick

Rick,

I am really enjoying your posts on this forum. This is a fresh way of looking at this issue for me. Thanks!

I'm looking forward to reading this thread.

Thanks, Derek

They're my opinions...and I haven't been posting about some stuff that I know would be possibly, if not probably, considered heretical (by almost anyone who posts here).....shhhhhh.....don't tell anyone, ok? The Lord blessed me by giving me a job a couple weeks ago but I'm off this week, can't get into Paltalk any more because my computer is too ancient (and where I used to have a room and play Steve's lectures, lol)...so I'm here for now, more than usual. I'm learning more than teaching on this forum by a long shot. You guys rock!

To the topic: Some Arminians and some Calvinists, or partial-Calvinists (who may not believe in all five points), probably do see themselves as "synergistic" wherein they would define the exercise of saving faith as a kind of "work."

But my first post probably reflects what the vast majority of non-Calvinists would say about these things, imo. As Steve says in one of his lectures, "Most non-Calvinists (and/or Arminians) believe what they do just from reading the Bible." It seems to me that the charge of "synergism" against them (us) is unwarranted as Calvinism isn't the "frame of reference" for most non-Calvinists who just read the Bible. Yet many Calvinists insist we are synergists...when we don't think from inside their "box."

I maintain I am saved by God through Christ's work of love on the cross. This may have a "monergistic" sound to it. But since I don't believe the system of Calvinism, which sees conversion through the "TULIP lens" (start to finish)...I'm labeled "synergist"......you get the picture.

Btw, my opinions are subject to change: without notice (I could be wrong!

Anyway, thanks Derek.......gtg..................tc

Since you want some input, let me try and help, and represent the Biblical perspective. A Monergist? Yes, absolutely.

Q&As for clarification

Q: Is receiving the gift of salvation a work?
Monergist: No. Salvation is God's work from start to finish, beginning with regeneration; after which, we also receive the gift of faith.

Tartan: Yes absolutely. Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent.

Non-Calvinist: No. But faith is the condition I have to meet in order to receive it. Faith is not a work, it is trust.

Monergist: But that's 'synergism' because you said you had to 'do' something; that's 'works!'

Tartan: 1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Non-Calvinist: I did not die for my sins, Christ did. This I believe. If you consider my trust in Him to save a "work" you are quite mistaken.
Monergist: 'Your trust.' 'Your trust.' 'Your trust.' Synergism!

Tartan: Rom 11:6 But if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it is of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work.

Non-Calvinist: Christ died for the sins of the world. You somehow think I participated in His work on the cross?
Monergist: You think you have to have faith in Him to be saved. But no one can even have faith until AFTER they are born again! Synergism!

Tartan: Faith is certainly the condition for Justification, but, Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (1 John 2:29)

Q: I'm holding a Christmas present out to you. Is it necessary for you to reach out and take it in order to receive it?
Monergist: This question is unfair because "Dead men can do nothing." God doesn't offer gifts in the ways people do.

Tartan: Yes, not to take it leaves you yet in your sins and lost. But what we ought to do does not imply that we can do it without regeneration.

Non-Calvinist: Yes, it would be necessary for me to take the gift in order to possess it, lol. God gives gifts just like people do. They're free!
Monergist: That's 'synergism.'

Tartan: The results of regeneration enable you to take the gift, Regeneration, the vital part is monergistic.

Non-Calvinist: How so?
Monergist: Because you had to 'do' something to get the gift.

Tartan: We take because we have been born again, we do not take to be born again.

Non-Calvinist: I suppose you are kind of right in an oblique and indirect way. I would be 'doing something' by taking it. But that would have nothing to do with my earning or working for it. After all, it is free for the taking. I didn't manufacture, purchase, or wrap the present, or merit it in any way.
Monergist: You believe in salvation by works!

Tartan: 1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Non-Calvinist: ...........(sigh).................

Tartan: Give the glory to God for enabling you to take the gift, a gift you never would have taken if left to yourself.
Believe it, preach it, and let us unite in the body instead of having this great divide that has been caused by your kind.

This should get the ball rolling............................Thanks, Rick

Tarton wrote:We take because we have been born again, we do not take to be born again.

Can we be born again and not take? Is there any time between being born again and taking?

Is it fair to say then, from the monergist's perspective that some, or perhaps even all, are saved quite against their will, whether they want to be or not, and that some are likewise damned, quite against their will, whether they want to be or not?

Perry!

It would take me an hour to reply to just one of Tartan's scripture citations (replies to me)!

My oh my! ...We need some structure here!
Too many questions all at once!!
(good ones tho)

Like this one, where you wrote:Is there any time between being born again and taking?

Right quick: Huh?
First, Calvinists believe you are born again before you have faith (this we know). They have different answers on how fast you get faith (and "saving faith" is a "gift of grace" in and of itself in Calvinism... Follow that, Perry)? Okay, next:

(Lots going thru my mind all at once here)....

Okay. Now, if we say we "take" a gift, that would be one way to say it. "He handed me the gift and I reached out and took it." But for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, it seems to me a word that would better describe the gift of salvation is: It is something we "receive." I don't think Mark intended to mean that we kind of "snatch" salvation out of God's hands (or that he meant to indicate this is what we do). Next:

Seldom do you hear people talk about regeneration and the gift of salvation separately (especially in debates between Calvinists & "nons"). I really think they need to be looked at separately -- and then -- together. (I'm not saying that the relative merits of TULIP & non-TULIP shouldn't be debated).

I'm saying this: Regeneration, being "born again" is what God does. No one gets born by themselves. I didn't give birth to myself...no one does. No Christians make themselves born again, obviously.....

Regardless of when anyone thinks "born again happens" (before or after faith); regeneration isn't the same thing as "receiving the gift" of salvation.
Regeneration is what God does. Yet we have faith at a time that is really close to when that happens. (Btw, Mark, I know you believe regeneration happens first...and don't want to contest that right now).

It just seems to me that regeneration -- and -- "receiving the gift" (of salvation) are somehow separate, though related, categories. I wonder if we should treat them as separate....

(Think about it): Does the Bible say we are to receive the gift of being born again? Though we view it as a "gift" (as it is "free"); I can't think of any instance where the Bible actually calls it a "gift." We know everyone who has been "born of God" has faith (in the past tense, Calvinists & non-Calvinists both agree on that)....(think about it).

Final illustrations, has anyone ever read (no disrespect to the Bible intended, for discussion purposes only):
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be born again" (?)....
"Do not marvel that I say to you, "You must receive the gift of being born again" (?)....
"For it is by grace you have been born again, through faith---and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not of works, lest any man should boast" (?) ....

See what I'm sayin yet? Even Nicodemus in John 3 didn't ask if it were possible that he could "do works" to be born again. He wondered if he could somehow go back into his mother's womb...(think about it).

Anyways.....
Methinks we'd better s l o w w w w . . . d o w w w w n . . . . . . a L O T , lol.

But (Perry) do you understand "TULIP" ??? (would help you a lot)...gtg for now, Rick

Total depravity... People can do nothing on their own, and nothing means absolutely positively nothing.
Unconditional election,... God picks His favorites.
Limited atonement,... Not everyone gets picked.
Irresistible grace,... The picked ones get saved whether they want to be or not.
Perseverance of the saints... The picked ones get saved whether they want to be or not.

I'm not trying to be unfair or make light of calvinists. That's what I understand the TULIP formula to be saying. Is it fairly accurate?

Perry

Quote:
Non-Calvinist: No. But faith is the condition I have to meet in order to receive it. Faith is not a work, it is trust.

Monergist: But that's 'synergism' because you said you had to 'do' something; that's 'works!'

Tartan: 1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Quote:
Non-Calvinist: I suppose you are kind of right in an oblique and indirect way. I would be 'doing something' by taking it. But that would have nothing to do with my earning or working for it. After all, it is free for the taking. I didn't manufacture, purchase, or wrap the present, or merit it in any way.
Monergist: You believe in salvation by works!

Tartan: 1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

How does 1 Cor. 4:7 contradict either point that Rick is making here?

First of all, is Paul talking about faith? Not that I can see.

Paul says "what do you have that you didn't recieve". Even in this verse, the person has to "recieve" something. If we were to apply this verse to faith, (though it doesn't appear that Paul is), "recieving" would be synonomous with faith.

Sure enough, faith is said to be the agent "through" which we are saved elsewhere.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Also worthy of note, is the fact that Paul says that our being saved "through faith" is not a result of works.

Believe it, preach it, and let us unite in the body instead of having this great divide that has been caused by your kind.

Better yet, let's not let our hobby horse doctrines divide the body of Christ. The only "kind" of person that produces divisions is the "divisive" kind, be they Arminians or Calvinists. Personally, I am happy to fellowship with Calvinists (the problem is finding one who feels likewise!).

God bless,

I'm not trying to be unfair or make light of calvinists. That's what I understand the TULIP formula to be saying. Is it fairly accurate?

Well, Limited Atonement would be the doctrine that Christ died (made atonement) only for the elect, (as opposed to all men everywhere).

While I more or less agree with the rest of your definitions, (because I think that they represent Calvinism taken to it's logical conclusion), I don't think that Calvinists will like them. I'll let them tell you why.

God bless,