Why I (a Calvinist) embrace Arminians/Synergists as fellow believers

A New Dawn said:

Faith is a work when one must come up with it on their own or make the decision to accept it. It isn't a work if it is given as a gift and our hearts regenerated so we don't have to decide to accept it or not.

Click to expand...

Scripture does not state that 'faith becomes a work' if we have to respond on our own to the gospel in belief or if we do not have 'our hearts regenerated first'. Faith in scripture is simply being persuaded of the truth - that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, who died on our behalf to reconcile us to God. Furthermore, scripture says that 'the work God requires' is that we believe (Jn 6:28-29), as opposed to dead works, not that we are doing dead works or trusting in our own righteousness if we decide to place our trust in Christ!

Indeed, faith is in every way contrasted with boasting in scripture. Boasting is excluded because of the law that requires faith, not works, because to place our faith in Christ is humbling, whereas to claim any work earning us our Salvation would be boasting.

To say, "I placed my faith in Christ" or "I accepted Christ as my Saviour" isn't something we can boast in, for by doing so we admit several things that are contrary to the nature of pride:

1) We acknowledge that we are sinners.

"This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst. But for this very reason I was shown mercy, so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His perfect patience, as an example to those who would believe in Him for eternal life." I Tim 1:15-16

By acknowledging our sin, we place the glory on Christ for His mercy in saving those who believe, not in anything we did.

The proud will either not admit their sin (I John 1:8) or they will love their sin and hide from anything that might convict them regarding it (Jn 3:19-20)

2) We acknowledge that we are under condemnation for our sin and need rescue.

By placing our faith in Christ, we are humbly admitting that the just penalty of our sin is death (Rom 6:23, Jn 3:18) and hence we need saving. The proud will often deny they need saving at all.

3) We acknowledge that it is Christ alone who can save.

The proud will not admit that Christ is the only one who can save them and deliver them from death to life. If they believe they need saving at all, they look to themselves for saving (karma, good works, enlightenment, etc.)

4) We acknowledge that Christ saves us out of His mercy as a free gift to those who believe.

By acknowledging that salvation is a free gift offered by Christ, we humbly admit that it is not something 'owed' to us for oue owin merit, nor did Christ 'have' to die on our behalf to bring salvation. (Rom 6:23, Rom 5:16, Rev 22:17, Tit 3:5)

During Paul's ministry, the fact the gospel was open and preached to Gentiles as well was a huge stumbling block for the Jews, who thought the Messiah was to come in power to overthrow Rome, not die to let Gentiles be reconciled to God. (I Cor 1:23-24) The fact that salvation was free, to all sinners, was also a stumbling block to the proud pharisees.

5) We acknowledge that Christ has all authority and is Shepherd of our lives.

By placing our faith in Christ we submit to Him, dying to sin and self (I Pet 2:24-25, Eph 4:22, Col 3:9). We then, in humility, submit to Christ (Eph 5:24). Our whole lives become humble service to our King (Rom 12:1, Col 3:23-25, Heb 9:14)

6) Faith leads us to continual humility in regards to our fellow man

Just as faith leads to a lifelong submission to Christ, so faith also leads us to submit to one another (Eph 5:21) and continually keep a proper perspective in our dealings with others in the church (II Cor 10:7-18, Gal 5:13)

"Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord. For it is l not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends." II Cor 10:17-18

"For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you." Rom 12:3

***

So then, faith is in every way contrasted with boasting, for it is based in humility, in a proper regard for one's position in regard to Christ. If a man proclaims, "I have placed my faith in Christ!" this is not a boast, but humility, for he is testifying that, "I was a sinner under condemnation for my wicked deeds, one in need of salvation, a salvation that only Jesus the Messiah could provide. I believe the Messiah is who He claims, with all authority given to Him. I have repented and given my life to Him, have died to myself and risen with him, and God for the sake of Christ's righteousness and His glory shall grant me eternal life."

What does it mean in Rom 3:27 that boasting is excluded because of the law that requires faith?

On a related point, scripture says it is salvation, that is the graciously offered gift we must receive through faith - not that faith itself is a gift that only certain people may receive through pre-regeneration of the Spirit.

In Eph 2:8 the gift is salvation, by grace and through faith. The process of salvation is taken as a whole in regards to source, reason, and mechanism. Paul contrasts salvation by grace and through faith with 'works', for man cannot achieve salvation by his own merit.

It's a similar train of thought to Rom 5:18-21. While we were all condemned by the law and sin reigned, the death of Christ brought justification by His own blood. In this grace reigns (the 'by'), through righteousness and through Jesus (the process), to bring eternal life (the 'what').

The process is given in even more detail in Rom 3:22-26: Righteousness is given through faith to all who believe. We are justified by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God displayed Christ publicly (grace) as a propitiation (atoning sacrifice) whose blood is applied to us through faith.

What does it mean that it is by grace we have been saved, through faith, and that this is not of ourselves but is the gift of God?

I neither hold to Calvinism or Arminianism, but this topic (at least the original post) is refreshing. Salvation comes through an ongoing faith in Christ alone (Jn 3:16) - that He is the Messiah, Son of God, who's blood covers our sins - not through faith in other matters like the mechanics of how salvation came about or what man-made theories we find the most scripturally sound. Seeking truth and evaluating the teaching of men through scripture and the Spirit is excellent - but that is part of our growth in faith, not our faith itself that is necessary for salvation. (II Pet 1:3-11, etc.)


That said, I would like to address a misunderstanding that seems to be running through this whole thread and in the title itself: Monergism and Synergism are not strict premises of themselves [such as God alone saves vs. Man saves himself, or "God alone is responsible for salvation" vs. "Man and God both contribute to salvation"], but are rather theological buzzwords.

Synergism and monergism are man-made terms, defined through the biased lens of man-made theories, not explicit teachings of scripture. These terms should be used with care, if at all, as it is easy to misuse them.

'Monergism' is a theory describing factors surrounding salvation, 'Synergism' is usually not actually advocated by anyone directly, but is most often used as a strawman term, created to show what anyone not believing the 'monergist' theory 'must' believe in, and hence defined through that lens.

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 or even discussed cordially among Christians!

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.

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, and there are slight variations held by different people who claim to hold to monergism, 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 most often used as a buzzword - usually used to describe how Calvinists/reformed perceive any non-Calvinist presentation of salvation; namely that any view contrary to monergism must hold that man contributes to saving himself.

The greek term 'synergy,' at the root of the newer term English term synergism, refers to two things working together to create a greater whole, such as two drugs interacting and having a far greater effect than simply adding up the two individual drug effects would give. However, there is no consistent definition for 'synergism' - it is an English term onloy loosley related to the underlying 'synergy,' and is often used to label a number of different beliefs of varying scriptural support or rejection.

- someone believing justification by human works in addition to faith (This concept is refuted in scripture, since justification is only through faith (Rom 3:28) apart from the works of the law.) Yet this view is not the only one frequently labeled 'synergy'.

- someone believing faith needs to bear out in works. (This is actually from James 2:4. Sometimes the scriptural principle that 'dead faith without works cannot save' is incorrectly labeled 'synergism' and demanding works for justification, even though it is not saying faith + works make something greater. It is actually showing that living faith bears out in fruit. The living faith leads to the good works, the works+faith don't work together for something else.)

- 'the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration' (Whether this counts as synergistic is debatable. Two interacting drugs may have synergy, but treating the patient cooperating with the doctor giving the drugs is a stretch far beyond the term. Also, since cooperating with the Spirit is not treated in scripture as a 'dead work,' indeed we are commanded to walk by the Spirit and listen to the Spirit, etc., there would be nothing negative or unbiblical about this form of interaction even if one did label it 'synergistic.')

- 'someone who believes man cooperates with God in his own conversion is advocating synergism.' (Again, this is more like a patient cooperating with the doctor than like any synergistic reaction from the interaction of drugs. There's nothing scripturally negative about it, and cooperation between two elements is not the same thing as synergy between two elements.)

- 'believing salvation results from the interaction of human will interacting with divine grace is synergistic' (If one drinks a glass of water he is refreshed, but that is not synergy. In the same way, someone believing the human will responds to the gospel in faith and receives salvation as a gift does not mean the human will is creating part of salvation or in any way making salvation greater than it already is. Again the Greek is misused in favor of the man-made term in order to brand others with a negative label. Furthermore, scripture treats the human heeding, listening, obeying, and responding in faith all as positives - not as impossibilities, a mark of pride, or trying to take credit for God's work.)

There are many other things applied to the term 'synergism' as well, but this is a sampling. It is not a theory people hold of themselves (usually), but is 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.

Back to the core premise that God alone saves, which is believed by all Christians who place their faith in Jesus (Whose name itself means 'Yahweh brings salvation') - whether they claim 'monergism' or are branded 'synergists':

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.)

There is nothing inherent in the concept of salvation that would mean a captive accepting salvation 'works with' the savior or contributes to his own salvation.

If you accept a gift, are you claiming any part in the making or giving of that gift? If you pledge allegiance to a king who rescued your people from certain destruction, are you claiming that you were responsible for part of the power, grace, and rescue of the king? No!

It was God who planned this salvation, and God who accomplished this salvation through Christ. It is God who revealed this salvation to man through Christ, offered salvation through faith in Christ, and God who fulfills all the promises this salvation brings.

What then, of man? We can do no work to earn salvation, nor would we have recognized our need without God revealing it to us. There is, however, one thing we must do: have faith! This is no action or dead work of man, but our belief in response to the gospel. It is our acknowledgment of our sin, our belief that Jesus has come as Messiah to save us, our dying with Christ to self and rising with Christ to put on His righteousness.

God set the plan of salvation up in such a way that we do need to do 'the work that God requires' and believe in Jesus Christ. (John 6:28-29) Only those who believe in Jesus will receive eternal life (John 1:12, John 3:16)

Is monergism or synergism correct?

Now, God requiring man to do something (respond in faith) to receive the free gift of salvation is not equivalent to men trying through dead works to achieve salvation on their own. Jn 6:29-20. Scripture is very clear on this point - faith is not a dead work of man. Faith is not an act of human righteousness to achieve heaven, rather it is the requirement to receive the righteousness of Christ credited to our own account. (rom 10:4-12, Rom 4:5-6.

How are we to understand the sequence and part that man plays in his salvation?

While I (like John Calvin before me) can't call myself a 5 point Calvinist - I will say that I am "Reformed" to say the least.

I believe that the vast majority of so called Calvinists (or Reformed) would not proclaim that Arminianism equates to being unsaved.

But of course there are degrees of Arminianism ranging from Romanism to Mormonism.

I do not believe that all of those extremes are lost. But I would say that many likely are depending on the degree of and personal trust in their wrong doctrine.

It is my opinion that many more so called cult/Arminians are likely saved than many of those Arminians here in the forum who routinely argue against Calvinism. For instance a Mormon friend of mine seems to have a genuine trust in the finished work of Christ as her only hope of salvation in spite of wrong doctrine on some other fronts.

IMO many in so called Chrisendom lack understanding of proper doctrine (such as the Trinity etc.) and are not therefore lost strictly because of that misunderstanding (as important as those doctrines are.)

Many in the early church, whom we would consider saved, had a weak understanding of many orthodox doctrines over the first couple of hundred year for instance. Certainly many of the early Messianic Jews did.

But the "works oriented" gospel believed and preached by a great many of those here in the forum who routinely argue against the doctrines of grace seem to me to have crossed the line.

I fear that, although orthodox in many ways, they have fallen from grace in their "soteriological" theology. Their concept of what it takes to be saved has evolved (or always has been) more of a "Christ plus works" concept than salvation by grace through faith.


IMO many Catholics and cult members will enter in while many Protestants will hear those terrible words.

It isn't just works oriented folks whom I fear for. It is also so called "Calvinists" who have never made their doctrine "personal" and have relied on that doctrine itself to save them rather than a "personal" relationship with God through Christ's finished work.

I have encountered (and butted heads with) many such while involved with the Presbyterians in the PCA.

So, as I see it, it isn't not believing certain doctrines which decides who is saved (as important as correct doctrine is). It is the personal nature of ones trust in the finsihed work of Christ at Calvary which is the deciding factor.

We find such lack of trusting faith in Calvinism and in Arminians both.

As I see it, the thief on the cross was undoubtedly pretty weak on doctine. But his out and out trust in Christ's ability to bring him into the Kingdom outweighed any lack of proper understanding of doctrine which he may have had (again - as extremly important as doctrine is in the life of the Church).

Likewise many whom I have encountered in Calvinism lack a personal faith in spite of their preceived doctrinal purity.

That's my 50 cents worth anyway.