Monergism or Synergism

Is Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone?

Kirkpatrick

• Editorial: Pickwick Publications
• Año: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781532630118
• Categoría: Teología y religión
• Categoría: Teología cristiana

The tensions between Calvinism and Arminianism have perpetuated Christian thought for some 500 years. The concerns from both parties are legitimate. Calvinists are often accused of fatalism along with holding to a troubling view of double-predestination. Arminians are often accused of holding to a human-centered view of salvation that robs God of glory while championing human ability. Could it be that many of the tensions between Calvinists and Arminians are sourced in an often-overlooked issue--monergism and synergism? Could the same be said regarding Protestantism and Roman Catholicism concerning justification? In this volume, Daniel Kirkpatrick explores the specific roles of God and humans in various aspects of salvation to determine whether salvation is a work between God and a person (synergism) or a work of God alone (monergism). Building upon the framework of Aquinas, the Reformers, and Arminians, this book examines the issue of who does the work of salvation in light of cause and effect with hopes of providing new insights on historic doctrines.

Chapter 1

An Introduction to Monergism and Synergism

Historical Survey of the Problem

Who does the work of salvation in the perspectives of Christian theology? If God does all the work of salvation, then what is to be said of the will and role of a believer? However, if humankind does the work of salvation, then what is to be said of one’s natural ability, the effects of sin, and the power of God? Is the activity of humankind grace driven effort or effort driven grace? All of these questions share a central concern: is salvation monergistic (meaning a work solely performed by God alone) or synergistic (a work shared between God and an individual)?

These questions have been of interest and argument even from biblical times. Spanning twenty-one centuries of the Christian church, one finds a diachronic development in thought on the worker (or workers) of salvation. One may question if a solution to this issue is possible. However, in order to propose a new solution to these questions, a short survey must be done to prove that such a tension exists as well as a brief overview of how such a tension has sought to be resolved. While space and focus do not permit an exhaustive examination of the history of monergism and synergism, a brief examination will show the existence of tension, development of the issue, and historical attempts at resolution while also enabling one to consider if other options may be available.

Biblical Tensions

While the notions of monergism and synergism are found in various traditions throughout church history, the tensions that source this disagreement are rooted in each camp’s interpretation of Scripture. Indeed, one could go so far as to say that the tensions themselves are sourced (not just in the interpreters but) in the Scriptures themselves. Whether Reformed or Arminian, Roman Catholic or Protestant, or even Augustinian or Pelagian, none of these parties would dispute that there must be some type of action on the part of an individual in order for salvation to occur. But what is the nature of this action? That has become the source of conflict, yet as one turns to the Scripture for insight, one finds that things are not without tension.

One may see such tensions beginning early in the Old Testament with the covenant made with Abraham (beginning in Gen 12). Many see this covenant being the means through which God would bring salvation.1 According to Genesis 12:1–3, God was the initiator of the covenant made with Abraham (or Abram) whereby some affirm that God’s initiative came prior to Abraham’s response.2 Most scholars affirm that God narrowed his redemptive plan to be through one man and one nation in order to bring about the redemption of the whole world.3 So far, there is little disagreement between parties.

However, the covenant God made with Abraham required a response. The covenant is something that Abraham and his descendants (i.e., Israel) should “keep” (according to Gen 17:10), and the sign of such reciprocity of the covenant was circumcision. While most agree that God’s choice is the basis for the covenant, it must be received by faith accompanied by the sign of circumcision (Gen 15:6, see also Rom. 4:3).4 As William Dyrness states:

And while the covenant was unconditional in the sense that God would never forget his promises and leave himself without a witness—that is, those who would respond in faith to these promises—the continuance of each individual in the blessings of these promises was contingent upon their response in faith.5

Dyrness goes on to say that keeping the covenant in faith was something that Israel failed to do. God’s election required a response, but Israel failed to respond (positively) by repeatedly turning away. As such, God promised that He would institute a new covenant, one that succeeds where Israel failed (Jer 31:31–34). It would be a law written on the heart, providing a knowledge that all people (from the least to the greatest) can know. It will be for everyone, inclusive of a wider community of God’s chosen people. Finally, this covenant will include the forgiveness of sin dealt with once and for all.6 However, this new covenant will (like the first) need to be received in faith.

Tensions are already formed (as will be shown below) as to the relationship between divine election and human faith in this short Old Testament survey. Faith as expressed through outward means like circumcision (to say nothing of other ceremonial rites such as dietary laws and sacrifices) may be considered as works which must be performed to maintain covenant status. Yet is faith, then, a work?

One then turns to the New Testament to find similar issues. It is hardly beyond question that Jesus’ original audience (and one might broaden this assumption to include many within first-century Judaism) viewed salvation to be something which they were personally responsible for in action.

Having witnessed Jesus’ most public demonstration of his divine power at that point in his ministry, the participants of Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand sought him again the next day, not, as Jesus would say, because of the signs they saw but, rather, because they ate of the loaves and were filled. Seeing that the people were in need of a lasting bread which would satisfy the famished soul, Jesus said, “Do not work for the food that perishes, but (work) for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (John 6:27).

Was Jesus telling his followers that the bread that He provides was something to be worked for (ἐργάζεσθε) by them? This would seem to be their understanding given their response in the following verse: “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” (NASB, emphasis added). As the original audience was Jewish, some claim the original audience understood such “works” to be that of “works of the Law” leading to eternal life.7 However, what is one to make of such “works of the law” that can work for eternal life? Given the nature of Jesus’ reply, it would depend upon the nature of belief (v. 36).

Similarly, one recalls Christianity’s first converts on the day of Pentecost. After Peter’s presentation of the Gospel (recorded in Acts 2), the people responded with a desperate plea: “Brothers, what should we do?” (emphasis added). Peter’s response for what they must d...