Gerald has a piece on Augustine and the synergism/monergism distinction up at Iustificare. Gerald believes that the real question is not about synergism vs. monergism, but rather about the resistability of grace. I think he is probably right about this, but I question his definition of synergism, since synergism is working together, but he seems to interpret it as simple concurrence. If I want God to do something, but have no power in myself to make it happen, it's not clear that this is synergism. However, Jesus does say "this is the work of God: that you believe in the One He has sent" (John 6:29). So let's suppose that believing or willing is a "work" (ergon) for the purpose of synergism. I have two points to make:
Trackbacks |
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blog.kennypearce.net/admin/mt-tb.cgi/276
|
If he is right, Calvin was a synergist. That in itself is a reductio of his position, since the term was coined to describe Calvin's view.
As far as I can tell, anyone who is a compatibilist is automatically going to be a monergist, whereas libertarians could go either way. Gerald's definition of monergism makes compatibilists and libertarians automatically synergists, with only hard determinists who deny any human freedom as monergists.
This is like saying that hardly anyone believes in limited atonement, because there's always some sense in which the atonement is unlimited (i.e. it is extended as an offer to all, even if not all are chosen to receive it). But that misses the point. The view was never intended to say that there's no sense in which the offer is not limited. It's taking the name of the view over-literally and applying it in a way that the proponents of the view do not do.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at November 16, 2006 8:49 AM