Now, some of our more classical Arminian (read: not Pelagian like much of American evangelicalism) friends have been claiming the term monergism as something that applies to them.
This is completely untrue.
In their own words, I will show how this is patently false. Here is an article from August of 2009 on the Evangelical Arminians website. The article can be found here: Arminians and Monergism
In the article, the author attempts to show how Arminians are grace alone, faith alone, monergistic people. His own words betray him.
The article starts with a valid concern. Calvinists do indeed often charge that Arminianism believes that man must make a move first and then God will make His move second. This is a valid concern. Arminianism teaches no such thing. Pelagianism does teach that though. Yet, Arminianism is not Pelagianism.
Yet, Arminianism ends up in the same place.
In the author's own words, here it is.
"After being enabled by the Spirit, the response of the sinner is passive. The sinner must stop resisting, repent of their sins, and place their faith in Christ. This gift, like any gift, is not irresistible. The sinner must accept the unmerited gift of God. Once this is done, following the plan of the Father, the Spirit joins the sinner to Jesus and thus begins the Savior’s relationship with the sinner."
"This is the part of Arminianism one could call synergistic, the acceptance of the gift of salvation, and it is nothing to be scared of because it is Biblical. The process of salvation is monergistic. He enables, He convicts, He draws, and He calls. Once the sinner places their faith in God, He is the one who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies the sinner; just as He had predestined to do (Romans 8:29-30) because the work of Christ on the cross was made for our atonement. Calvinists cannot seem to get past this synergistic aspect, but it is the Biblical view of salvation. (Acts 16:30-31, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc)."
There it is. It's all God...but you must accept it. If you must do something to accept it, how is it all God? In other words, God does everything to save you, but you, as an individual, must make a positive choice to accept this gift. How is this monergist at all? Well, it's not. Monergism means "one work." There is no monergism where there is the formula that "God does it all, but..."
There is no "but." No "you must choose." No "you must accept."
In other words, Arminianism, even the classical variety, slips in that one little thing that we must do in order to be saved.
There is no way around it, Arminianism is a soft form of works righteousness. Anything that gets slipped in that we must do in order to be saved, as something that comes from our will, is works. There is no way around it.
To put this simply, it is 100% God and His works that save us. If we add in anything that we must do to the equation, we enter the realm of synergism and thus works righteousness. Arminianism falls into tat category. And yes, if we say that we must accept Christ in order to be saved, we are falling back on our own work.
Calvinism has its own issues, but this is not one of them.
+Pax+
Calvinism has its own issues, but this is not one of them.
+Pax+
All of them have a works righteousness or synergism, it’s just a matter of where they put it and what they call it and they all call theirs monergism and here is how:
ReplyDeleteRank Pelagianism puts it up front in Creation. Since God is the Creator, even after the fall, man has the power to do. So it’s God’s work and power and thus “monergism”. All make the same basic argument, they just merely shift where and names. This divine power to do comes out of the creation even after the fall. Thus, plausible deniability concerning the accusation of synergism.
Semi-pelagianism and Arminianism put it just before conversion at the offer so you “make a choice”, they call it “spirit”. It’s “monergism” because it’s the “spirit”.
RC-ism puts it in the sacraments that “infuse” it into you. They call it infusion of grace to now do. It’s “monergism” because it’s infused grace/power from God.
Calvinism puts it after conversion in their “sanctification” and “assurance of election” lingo. They call it variously depending on the conversation the invisible work of the spirit and “regeneration/rebirth”. It’s “monergism” because it’s the “spirit” and regeneration.
What they miss, in Luther especially, is monergism means monergism through and through. The saved person who can be assured of such is “in re” (reality) a sinner through and through before and after conversion, but a saint “in se” (hope/expectation). This is why they grossly miss Paul’s Romans 9 argument. For Luther the simul Justus et peccator is in se/in re respectively where even good work/fruits are an invisible article of faith to be opened as a present at the eschaton like a child sure of his present at Christmas (the sheep react this way, the goats bleat and bleat about their good works and fruits as assurance). Thus, Paul’s argument, what Luther CLEARLY points out in Romans and saw in 9 is that the reprobate MUST be us, this we confess every Sunday on this side of the eschaton, “…I am by NATURE sinful and unclean…”, so that we are in hope/faith/assurance elect. Thus, Paul and Luther argue in Romans, esp. Romans 9, ‘simul reprobatus et electus’.
This why Luther warns to read Paul’s line of argument carefully, know how deep your sin is and that term includes the eternal wrath of God and entire kingdom of Satan, and suffer at the foot of the Cross (i.e. know you are nothing, no works, ever, after baptism) first then read providence in Romans 9 the strong wine so that it is great assurance to you in providence when persecution comes. This is also Luther’s point in BOW that the reformed utterly miss and wrongly think his book is on “their side” when he states God makes alive by killing, justifies by damning, brings to heaven by first bringing down to hell, mercy by first wrath, his alien work before his proper work.
Until one understands Luther on this one will not realize Rome, Geneva, the Remonstrants, et. al. are all on the same pole but differing ends, and the church bearing Luther’s name is an entirely different pole, not a wee different but an entirely different religion where true naked monergism is.
Or the short summary is this: Anytime, without exception, the Word and Sacrament are not what they say they are, to/for you (e.g. baptismal rebirth, Christ’s body and blood in your mouth, the pastor’s vocal cords absolving) of necessity in whatever theology it is – it is shear synergism no matter how it otherwise says it is not. It simply is not possible to not be synergism otherwise.
Larry, excellent thoughts! Very well-put!
ReplyDeleteThanks Josh, it took me years as an ex-baptist then ex-PCA/reformed Calvinist to put my finger on Calvin's synergism because as a Cavlinist we'd confess pure monergism and that played out in our (then) confessions. But the sacraments revealed the synergism its just more hidden than overt in say Arminianism. True monergism, ala Luther, is very different.
ReplyDeleteThe connection began to occur to me when reading Luther's BOW, a book Calvinist love to think is "for them" and their theology but is not, in light of Luther's catechism. Luther said that of all his writings these two, BOW and the Sm. Cat. he would deem most worthy of being retained and expressing his theology. Well, that means something is being said in BOW that is anti-Calvinist because in the SC he states bluntly "this sacrament is the Gospel". Once one "gets" how Luther so easily saw Zwingli's false teaching (and by extension later Calvin's) then one realizes what Luther says everywhere else, the papacy, the enthusiast (i.e. the protestants we know today), and the turk teach basically the same thing enthusiam and original sin as the way of "salvation"; and why Luther said the peasant (via the enthusiast) has now become the new monk.
The papacies attack on justification by faith alone is the same as the protestant's (then and now) attack on the sacraments because they are the same "this sacrament is the Gospel" said Luther and "Christ is the true sacrament". The attack either way by whomever is the reassertion of the will hiddenly or openly and cryptic synergism (Calvin/Augustine) or open synergism (Rome/Arminianism).
Ironically JR Tolkein accidently saw this when he speculated that the devil's real attack was not on justification by faith alone but the blessed sacrament. Yes and no, because an attack on one is an attack on the other, so Tolkein is right, the devil's attack has always been on the sacraments which ARE justification by faith alone, in Roman doctrine that hid it in their sacramental theories and infusion lingo, and then later in the denuding of the sacraments by Zwingli, Calvin, Baptist, et. al.
Taking the sacrament as salvation and forgiveness is no more "my work" than Noah walking into the Ark with his family and being saved, God uses the creation to make salvation in His Worded into being things. Original sin likes to see salvation and God in the nude, undressed without His Word and Worded into being things. It's why spiritualism, esoteric religion, sign/symbols only (Calvin/Zwingli), gnosticism and original sin as well as platonism and neoplatonism are all fundamentally the same original sin.
In my previous, pre-LCMS Methodist days, I had been led to believe that I had "made a decision for Christ". And while I wholeheartedly agree with Baptismal regeneration, when about 5 years old I was told "be a good boy so you'll go to Heaven!" How good did I have to be? If Baptism had given me true faith in Jesus, then why did I believe a false gospel? When my Sunday School teacher told me John 3:16, which revealed that I had been saved since I believed in Jesus, I simply accepted it on the spot with no question. The Holy Spirit caused me to understand the Gospel of Jesus saving me passively, monergistically, no decision required, and by not one whit of my own power. So, I conclude that the faith granted in Baptism was swayed by a false works-righteousness gospel, then restored by the HolySpirit . The greatest Christian truth I gained from confessional Lutheranism is that even my faith in Jesus came as God's free gift unto eternal salvation.
ReplyDeleteBut sadly, I have a mother who is an Arminian. Even though she speaks of making a commitment to Christ (which only someone already saved could do), she certainly believes she is saved by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone. Does her Arminianism exclude her from salvation? The fact that the woman who was most instrumental in raising me in the Christian faith could be hellbound for mistakenly believing she could choose Jesus by her free will has me in anguish. Is there a good Lutheran resource to share with my mom, or a good set of Bible verses? Any pastors out there want to help me out?
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a pastor but a lay elder in the lcms that went the route of atheist, SB, reformed, then Luther. Just context.
No she is not excluded from salvation. There are official works righteousness theologies and then there are the internal ones. Truth be known we all have internal works righteousness theologies, that's our constant old Adam sinner nature that is REAL. As our pastor always says, "I have to protect you from your own self righteousness". So its a constant. When we confess for absolution on Sundays its not just the black sins but the good white stuff where I did "good works" per se.
Your mother's baptism is 100% valid and as pastor reminds us "God cannot evacuate His name".
Today, to drive the point home, if you have atheist that actually rejects the REAL Jesus and not the moral to imitate other jesus of Rome or Protestantism or bad Lutheranism that most preach, teach and confess...you've made serious progress in at least sending the rejection to the right address.
Your mother is baptized and that name cannot be vain, she's saved!
Thanks so much. It is good that Jesus won forgiveness for all sins regarding misunderstanding of salvation by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I once saw the Evangelicals as the champions in the war against the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. I appreciated that there were evangelists preaching the Gospel (sadly, albeit with decision theology). Among my mom's books are those of Billy Graham, Rick Warren, John Hagee and Joyce Meyer, all heretics. I'm sticking to reading the Book of Concord and C.F.W. Walther when not reading my Bible.
On an even sadder note, my kid brother was baptized before my five-year-old eyes. But he refused to participate in Sunday School, let alone Confirmation class. He's an alcoholic atheist with spousal abuse and weapons violations. And it wasn't because God didn't remain faithful to my brother; he resisted the Holy Spirit and became faithless...