Balancing the scriptures-monergism vs. synergism

[kmaaj]

Holding seemingly opposites equally as truth…

What brought this up is myself noticing that those who push absolute monergism rely soley on Pauline epistles, while belittling other epistles and even the words of our Lord to make their point.

I have no problem saying it’s all God. I have no problem acknowledging His exhortations to me to cooperate in His plan of salvation. When it comes to monergism vs. synergism, why does it have to be “either/or”? When holding up the relevant scriptures to the subject, seems to me the only logical conclusion is “yes” to both.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Well, just for a moment, let’s rise up above the “smoke of battle” if you will and take a 10,000 foot view of Scripture.

The Word of God is not “something,” but “Somebody,” namely, Jesus Christ. He is unified Truth. The Word of God has been transmitted to us both orally (first), then in writing (second). Only SOME of what was transmitted to us orally got put in writing (John 21:25), but the Apostles (and their successors, of course) were commanded to go forth and teach ALL that they were taught by Jesus (Matt. 28:20).

So, the Word of God, like God, has a trinitarian “flavor,” if you will. First, it must be interpreted as a whole, not in snippets, not out of context of the whole. The Old Testament always points towards Jesus in the New Testament. The New Testament is always a fulfillment of the Old Testament. Second, all of Holy Scripture must be interpreted in light of Holy Tradition (a.k.a., Oral Tradition.) Third, both Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture must be interpreted via the Magisterium of the Church, the Pope and the bishops in union with him.

And it doesn’t matter how many degrees we have in ancient languages, history, theology, etc. If we do not interpret the Word of God with the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that inspired it, we’re nothing but an amateur and headed for error.

I might suggest you read the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum, which you can get from here:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

It’s not that long and can probably be read in one sitting.

God bless!

Scooby

 

[MarcoPolo]

There are plenty of passages in Paul’s letters, also, that use language indicative of the person’s role in responding to grace. Those who criticize Catholics for ever using so-called “synergistic” language give Paul a free pass for doing the same.

 

[dmar198]

Holding seemingly opposites equally as truth…

What brought this up is myself noticing that those who push absolute monergism rely soley on Pauline epistles, while belittling other epistles and even the words of our Lord to make their point.

I have no problem saying it’s all God. I have no problem acknowledging His exhortations to me to cooperate in His plan of salvation. When it comes to monergism vs. synergism, why does it have to be “either/or”? When holding up the relevant scriptures to the subject, seems to me the only logical conclusion is “yes” to both.

It seems that it has to be either/or because “mono” contradicts “syne.” However, there is one good way to reconcile them: for adults who convert to Christianity, their salvation begins as monogernistic because whatever grace God offers them is in no way produced by themselves, only by God. After that initial grace begins has acted upon them, preparing them to be able to know God’s will, and once God’s will is revealed to them to join the Church, it is up to them either to cooperate with that grace or reject it (synergism).

The initial moment of salvation, for an infant during baptism, is certainly monogernist, because an infant can in no way cooperate with anything at all, at least not intentionally.

Dave Armstrong, Catholic apologist, writes about this frequently. See this link for more: “Dave Armstrong - Mongergism as a Characteristic of Initial Justification”