-John W. Hendryx
Recently a visitor seemed deeply troubled that we would equate our belief in Monergism with "Christ alone" -- that by doing so we were being tribal, because this communicates the idea that synergists do not affirm "Christ alone" and to make this claim is to stir up animosity between brothers. But our purpose is not to create bitter feuds, but to be faithful to Scripture on a foundational subject. For those of us who are persuaded of monergism didn't we all come to embrace monergistic regeneration because it best expresses the Biblical data regarding the extent of Christ's work in our salvation?
Doesn't he word "monergism" itself help us understand this concept? The word consists of two main parts: The prefix "mono" means "one", "single", or "alone" while "ergon" means "to work". Taken together it means "the work of one". That is, regeneration is the work of Jesus Christ alone (as applied by the Holy Spirit), not the cooperation of man and God and not the result of unregenerate man meeting a condition (like faith) before regeneration takes place. THE main difference between Monergism & Synergism, then, is that while synergistic theology affirms the necessity of Christ, yet they do not affirm the sufficiency of Christ. That is, synergists do not affirm that Christ provides everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe and understand the gospel. (1 Cor 2, John 6:63-65, 37, 44). Christ does most of what we need, but we still need to meet God's condition to be saved. If, as synergists may say, God grants grace to all men, then we must ask, why do some believe and not others? Did some make better use of Christ's grace than others? Does Christ make them to differ or something else (like our decision)? That 'something else' means that Christ may be necessary to them but not sufficient to provide all they need to be saved (including a renewed heart to believe). Thus 'Christ alone', as it was understood in the Reformation, is a monergistic distinctive. His cross is sufficient to provide all we need including the very faith required of us.
Is our faith, therefore, something we can thank God for, or is it the one thing we contribute to the price of our salvation? Is God's love for us conditioned upon whether we believe or not or does His love meet the condition for us in Christ, according to scripture? We affirm that God gives us this condition but Christ does for us what we are unable to do for ourselves. We are not, therefore, partly dependent on Christ for salvation but wholly dependent.
Example: Is God's love like a parent who sees his child run out into traffic and who merely calls out to him to get out of the way or is God's love like the parent who, at the risk of their life, runs out and scoops up the child to MAKE CERTAIN that his child is safe. We all know that true love gets the job done ... it doesn't merely sit on the sidelines when something so critical as ones life is at stake. God's love is unconditional for His people and He sends his Son to make certain His sheep are not lost.
Note: a large percentage of synergists who are Protestants would openly confess that there is no hope save in Christ alone - and for this we embrace them as our beloved brothers in Christ, but the debates come about when their theology blatantly contradicts this good confession, when they believe in Christ PLUS a condition we meet, apart from grace. When we deny the sufficiency of Christ to provide anything (for apart from Christ we can do nothing) then we are not faithfully giving witness to the Scriptural understanding of "Christ alone" .
Michael Haykin rightly said, "It is wrong to suppose that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that storm center of the Reformation, was the crucial question in the minds of such theologians as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. This doctrine was important to the Reformers because it helped to express and to safeguard their answer to another, more vital, question, namely, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith."
!!!!Also see John's "Eleven(11) resons to reject Libertarian Free Will" !!!!
So I'm reading this and thinking Wow Stermer has become quite the philosophical writer. Not till I got to the very end did I realize this was J.W. Hendryx's writing not your own. Honestly I would have to read it over again to truly understand the entire thing. From what I gather it is the debate over whether not just believing in Christ's salvation is enough or whether there is other doctrine that must be considered. Please correct me if I don't have it write though.
ReplyDeleteHaha, funny you say that because i thought that that might happen after i posted it. The concept of monergism is that God does the work. We know that in our understanding Christ is also god and so He is in that sense doing the work alone. It is that we are saved by faith that is given to us by grace. who gives the grace? God does. what did he give a graciously? a righteousness able to declare us just. who's righteousness is it? Jesus'. so we see that by that, God is the one at work. We do not add to it or subtract from it but it is God who does it all, the author and perfector of our faith. just as paul said that we are saved by grace through faith so that no one may boast. if we boast, boast in the Lord for it is He who has accomplished everything. I guess the problem most people will come in and say, "now hold on one second" is when they are told it was not their choice but Gods that they believed. and so we must back up and ask the question i think that is stated above, that if it is to my choice it must have made me better because I was more responsive to God's calling, when though many dont think that when claiming their choice to believe, it has left room for that sort of thinking, leaving one room to boast in his choice and not in God's sovereign choice. This idea of monergism just extend to the idea that God's grace in a gift that God has the right to freely extend to whom he pleases, and it makes Him efficacious in His actions. For if God wanted to save many and left it up to our choice, none will come to Him, none will believe unless God worked in them to allow them to do so. I am kind of rambling but if there is anymore questions you have please ask them I am willing to answer them!
ReplyDeleteI understand the majority of that. Where you lose me is whether it is God's choice that we believe or is it an option we have, with God extending his hand to everyone it is just a matter of whether or not we have the courage to take it. I guess I was taught and have always believed that God wishes everyone to be faithful and is more than willing to work through all of us but only some of us respond to this calling and believe.
ReplyDeleteYeah the presupposition is that we choose. but that would put you in a position to be better than someone who doesnt believe. By your work have you gained eternal life now, and not by God's work. Also, say now if it by our choice to be saved and not Gods. It is now based on chance that anyone is saved. So if God wills everyone to be saved, but leaves it up to us, you are leaving the possibility that absolutely no one will be saved. not saying no one is, but simply leaving it up to us god now could end up with an empty heaven eternally frustrated that He was not able to save no one. But on the contrary God is able to save, how, because he is proactive to do so. It is His work that saves and His alone. Sola gratia-by grace alone, Sola fide-by faith alone, Sola Christus-by Christ alone, Soli Deo Gloria- to God alone be the Glory!
ReplyDelete