Monergism vs. Synergism

According to definition given in www.monergism.com (emphasis in bold is mine), Monergism is the belief that in our regeneration, the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ independent of any cooperation from our un-regenerated human nature. He quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh — giving rise to a delight in His Word — all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly & gladly embrace Christ.  In Synergism, on the other hand, the grace of God that regenerates us requires our cooperation, through our freedom.  Because we have freedom, we can either choose to cooperate or not. 

Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who follow the teachings of Reformers Calvin and Luther are monergist, while the rest, together with Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox, to the best of my knowledge) are synergist.  A good comparison of these two views is when we have faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour.  A monergist will say that our ability to believe in Christ comes solely from God’s Grace – we can do it because we are first regenerated by God, there is no such thing as our cooperation because of our totally corrupt nature. A synergist will say His Grace will first moves us and then we, using our freedom, cooperate by receiving it (or rejecting it).  Such cooperation is possible because our nature, while wounded, is not totally corrupted.  Note that both in monergism and synergism the initiative for our salvation comes from God.

As one scriptural proof, www.monergism.com cites Ezekiel 11:19-20: And I [God] will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.  At first glance this verse seems to give strong support of monergism.  Let’s look at the next verse, Ezekiel 11:21: But as for those whose heart goes after their detestable things and their abominations, I will requite their deeds upon their own heads, says the Lord God. A monergist will say that God chose them (from eternity) not to be regenerated – the so-called double predestination, i.e. God chose from eternity whom He will regenerate and whom He will not. But how to reconcile it with 1 Corinthians 15:22 (emphasis in bold is mine): For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive and for the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men (Titus 2:11)?  Ezekiel 11:19-20 neither explicitly says that regeneration requires or does not require our cooperation and the same applies to other verses cited to support monergism (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 and 1 Peter 1:23).  But does it (1 Thessalonians 1:4) says “he [God] has chosen you”?  Does it prove that God chose some men to be saved?  Yes, but synergists also believe in Election, i.e. God predestines some men (the Elect) for heaven by choosing them from eternity.  But they reject the idea that God predestines the rest to hell.  They end up in hell because they, in using their freedom, decide not to cooperate with God’s Grace and not because God desires them to be in hell (Monergist’ view).  Scripture says (1 Timothy 2:4) God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Infused righteousness versus imputed righteousness – which one entitles us to enter heaven?

There is still on-going discussion on infused righteousness (Catholic position) and imputed righteousness (Protestant/Reformer position).  Rev. Chase Sears of Reformed Baptist Church wrote a number of posts on this issue in his blog (http://chasesears.info/) – he already closed his blog.  It is quite natural (and he is entitled to do so) that he tried his best to defend Protestant’s position and tuned down that of Catholic. 

Imputed righteousness means we use Christ’ righteousness accepted by faith alone to cover our unrighteousness – in other words we do not contribute anything and we are declared righteous.  It is like Christ covers our dirty robe (the dirt represents our sins) with his spotless robe and He needs to do it only once.  Infused righteousness, on the other hand, means God through Christ helps us to become righteous.  Note that the source of righteousness is God, not us, yet the outcome of justification is we become righteous.  Using similar analogy of dirty robe representing our sin, in infused righteousness God through Christ helps us to clean our dirty robe.  This needs our cooperation and it is an on-going process.  Our dirty robe is first washed clean through (Sacrament of) Baptism. Whenever we make it dirty again through sinning, God through Christ helps us to clean it through (Sacrament of) Reconciliation.  When we die with our robe still stained with venial sin then purgatory will cleanse it.    Imputed righteousness concept cannot go inline with purgatory – purgatory makes what Christ did (covering our dirty robe) insufficient.

Which righteousness entitles us to enter heaven? In Matthew 25:31-46 the sheep are welcomed into heaven while the goats are sent to hell  Verse 46 boldly says that the righteous will go to eternal life.  Are they declared righteous or made righteous (hence are righteous)?  Verses 35 and 36 tell us that they did righteous acts, i.e. they did not use Christ’ righteousness to cover their unrighteousness or to make their unrighteous things appear righteous (before God).   1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”.   Certainly to believe in Christ is one act that leads to righteousness – but it is not the only one.  The phrase “He who does right” implies our cooperation. The goats are condemned to hell because they did not do righteous acts or they are not unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9).  They are not declared unrighteous but they are indeed unrighteous.

The reason why Protestants are against infused righteousness is they view it as work-based justification, in contradiction to their concept of faith alone justification.  Catholics do not believe in working on or earning our justification either.   God’s Grace always first moves us to do righteous acts, be they believe in Christ, love one another, repenting etc.  This means without His Grace we can neither do them nor even have the initiative to do them.  Protestants, while insist on justification by faith alone, at the end of the day have to admit that faith that justifies is not alone as what Rev. Sears, quoting from Calvin, wrote below (emphasis added):

Calvin said, “When we say a man is justified by faith alone, we do not fancy a faith devoid of charity, but we mean that faith alone is the cause of justification.” Again Calvin makes this remarkable statement “I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.”

On John 20:22-23

Catholics understand that John 20:22-23 as the scriptural support of Sacrament of Reconciliation or Penance.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them [the apostles], and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” We look at the testimony of two early Christians, Ambrose and John Chrysostom, on how they interpreted these verses.

Ambrose (c. 338 to 397 AD) was bishop of Milan, Italy from 374 to 397 AD.   In one of his works, Concerning Repentance, he wrote commentary on John 20:22-23 (English translation from Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers or NPNF, Series II, Vol. 10):

Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: “Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, Chapter 2: 7 to 8

Echoing the same view, John Chrysostomos (c. 347 to 407AD), bishop of Constantinople wrote (English translation from Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers or NPNF, Series I, Vol. 9 with added emphasis):

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, “Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?” What authority could be greater than this? “The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?” But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to Heaven, and had transcended human nature, and were released from the passions to which we are liable. Moreover, if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book 3, Chapter 5

In contrast Reformer John Calvin, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, denied that the authority to forgive sin was given to the apostles. 

While Christ enjoins the Apostles to forgive sins, he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, that through their agency he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers.

Calvin, Commentary on John 20:22-23

Following Calvin, Protestants generally interpret those verses as commandment to preach Gospel.

Most absurdly do the Papists, on the other hand, torture this passage, to support their magical absolutions. If any person do not confess his sins in the ear of the priest, he has no right, in their opinion, to expect forgiveness; for Christ intended that sins should be forgiven through the Apostles, and they cannot absolve without having examined the matter; therefore, confession is necessary. Such is their beautiful argument. But they fall into a strange blunder, when they pass by the most important point of the matter; namely, that this right was granted to the Apostles, in order to maintain the credit of the Gospel, which they had been commissioned to preach. For Christ does not here appoint confessors, to inquire minutely into each sin by means of low mutterings, but preachers of his Gospel, who shall cause their voice to be heard, and who shall seal on the hearts of believers the grace of the atonement obtained through Christ. We ought, therefore, to keep by the manner of forgiving sins, so as to know what is that power which has been granted to the apostles.

Calvin, Commentary on John 20:22-23

 

Calvin and Baptism

John Calvin wrote commentaries of New Testament books save 3 John and Revelation.  They can be viewed and/or downloaded at http://www.ccel.org/.  On Mark 16:16 he wrote (underlined emphasis is added):

He who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved. This promise was added in order to allure all mankind to believe; as it is followed, on the other hand, by a threatening of awful destruction, in order to terrify unbelievers. Nor is it wonderful that salvation is promised to believers; for, by believing in the only begotten Son of God, not only are they reckoned among the children of God, but receiving the gift of free justification and of the Spirit of regeneration, they possess what constitutes eternal life. Baptism is joined to the faith of the gospel, in order to inform us that the Mark of our salvation is engraved on it; for had it not served to testify the grace of God, it would have been improper in Christ to have said, that they who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved. Yet, at the same time, we must hold that it is not required as absolutely necessary to salvation, so that all who have not obtained it must perish; for it is not added to faith, as if it were the half of the cause of our salvation, but as a testimony. I readily acknowledge that men are laid under the necessity of not despising the sign of the grace of God; but though God uses such aids in accommodation to the weakness of men, I deny that his grace is limited to them. In this way we will say that it is not necessary in itself, but only with respect to our obedience.

Calvin considered Baptism as mark of our salvation and admitted that it is joined to the faith yet he denied its absolute (I use his own word) necessity, i.e. it only shows our obedience.  Compared his statement with that of Luther in my earlier post. On 1 Peter 3:21 he wrote (underlined emphasis is added):

The like figure whereunto I fully think that the relative ought to be read in the dative case, and that it has happened, through a mistake, that ὃ is put, and not ᾧ. The meaning, however, is not ambiguous, that Noah, saved by water, had a sort of baptism. And this the Apostle mentions, that the likeness between him and us might appear more evident. It has already been said that the design of this clause is to shew that we ought not to be led away by wicked examples from the fear of God, and the right way of salvation, and to mix with the world. This is made evident in baptism, in which we are buried together with Christ, so that, being dead to the world, and to the flesh, we may live to God [Romans 6:4]. On this account, he says that our baptism is an antitype (ἀντίτυπον) to the baptism of Noah, not that Noah’s baptism was the first pattern, and ours an inferior figure, as the word is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the ceremonies of the law are said to be antitypes of heavenly things, Greek writers apply the same word to sacraments, so that, when they speak of the mystical bread of the holy Supper, they call it the antitype. But here there is no comparison made between the greater and the less; the Apostle only means that there is a likeness, and as they commonly say, a correspondence. Perhaps it might more properly be said to be correspondency, (ἀντίστροφον,) as Aristotle makes Dialectics to be the antistrophè of Rhetoric. But we need not labor about words, when there is an agreement about the thing itself. As Noah, then, obtained life through death, when in the ark, he was enclosed not otherwise than as it were in the grave, and when the whole world perished, he was preserved together with his small family; so at this day, the death which is set forth in baptism, is to us an entrance into life, nor can salvation be hoped for, except we be separated from the world.

It seems to me Calvin admitted that Baptism is entrance to life.  He considered Baptism as Sacrament in what he further wrote:

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.

We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, “Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized.” To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few. It hence follows that we ought carefully to see how men commonly act when we rely on examples, and that we ought not to fear though we may be few in number.

But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.

As Sacrament, Baptism has two elements, (outward) sign and Grace (Calvin called it “thing”).  The (outward) sign is water – it makes God’s Grace, which is beyond our comprehension (something we cannot feel or sense using our five senses), becomes visible. What God through His Grace does to for us in Baptism, as Calvin wrote (correctly), is washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh.  Calvin clearly disagreed with those who consider Baptism only as sign, a view that is held by many Protestants today. At the same time Calvin accused Catholics (or papists in his term) to concentrate on the outward sign of Baptism (i.e. water) as mean of salvation and to forget Christ.  This charge is, of course, unfounded – Catholics do consider Baptism as necessity but it is not the only requirement of salvation.  In order to further separate Baptism from salvation Calvin wrote:

What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.

The problem is, earlier Calvin admitted that Baptism is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ, i.e. it is not the washing of our bodies as Peter stated as removal of dirt from body.