Catholic Monergism

[Nita]

Thanks Veritas for the website. Article was good - and looks like a lot of other good articles there.

I’m defining, for the purposes of this thread, monergism as stating that God, and God alone, is responsible for saving someone. In monergism He is absolutely sovereign, and salvation is absolutely not up to anyone but God. Whom He saves, He saves.

Anyone know how a stict monergist (as defined above) would interpret a Scripture passage like the following:
Matt. 23:37 * "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often **would *****I ***have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! *

Nita

 

[jimmy]

Take a look at the context (I also would like a link to the COT but I don’t have one. I seem to recall a vigorous refutation of earning your salvation in a neighboring canon… Also please explain how this contradicts the canons of the Council of Orange, if it does.

Here is a link to the session on justification from the council of Trent.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Here are the first five canons.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

[Page 45] CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

 

[Bishopite]

Catholicism does not teach monergism and neither doe the Scriptures. The Greek is clear about synergism…

"In Romans 8:28 we also read that “in everything God works for good with [sunergei eis agathon] those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.”

Paul goes beyond what he says in Romans 8:28 in a verse that would make a Calvinist even more uncomfortable: “Working together with [sunergountes] him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1).

Here we have not only the language of men working with God (as opposed to God working with men), but Paul adds his exhortation not to accept the grace of God in vain, which indicates that the grace of God can be accepted in vain."

A full exegesis of this verse would have to show what grace is being talked about—whether it is the offer or the reality of salvation. But no matter what the answer to that question is, this verse says something incongruent with standard Calvinist language, because it means it is either possible to accept the grace of salvation at one time and then have it be in vain, or it means that it is possible to accept the grace of the offer of salvation and have it be in vain because you fail to cooperate with the offer—either of which means that this grace is not irresistible." (The Salvation controversy, 2001 by Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, San Diego, CA")

 

[Truthstalker]

Calvin sort of disregards that point in his commentary on the verse. In neither translation I have of his Institutes (Battles and Beveridge) is the verse referenced in the index. Apparently this was not one of his favorite verses… It should have been - he should have had a vigorous refutation of a synergistic interpretation of the verse. Instead there is silence.

 

[Reformed1]

Calvin sort of disregards that point in his commentary on the verse. In neither translation I have of his Institutes (Battles and Beveridge) is the verse referenced in the index. Apparently this was not one of his favorite verses… It should have been - he should have had a vigorous refutation of a synergistic interpretation of the verse. Instead there is silence.

Did you by chance read his commentary on this verse in his commentary on the book of Romans?

The institutes weren’t meant to be a commentary on each and every single verse in scripture.

 

[Truthstalker]

Did you by chance read his commentary on this verse in his commentary on the book of Romans?

The institutes weren’t meant to be a commentary on each and every single verse in scripture.

Where in Romans?

I agree the institutes aren’t meant to be a commentary on every verse, but the commentaries are. And this verse is significant enough that I think he should have addressed it.

 

[Reformed1]

Where in Romans?

I agree the institutes aren’t meant to be a commentary on every verse, but the commentaries are. And this verse is significant enough that I think he should have addressed it.

I think you were commenting on Romans 8:28.

Anyway, go to ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xii.ix.html and you can read over the verse.

Not sure if his commentary will address your concerns but he (Calvin) was aware of the verse in question and did not ignore it.

 

[Truthstalker]

I think you were commenting on Romans 8:28.

Anyway, go to ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xii.ix.html and you can read over the verse.

Not sure if his commentary will address your concerns but he (Calvin) was aware of the verse in question and did not ignore it.

Thanks for the reference. I don’t think it did. It did, however, bring up a complication: when we pray for someone’s salvation, is that a work that we perform? If God chooses to answer that prayer, and someone is saved (leaving out, for the purposes of this thread, what that means), are we not cooperating, that is to say, synergizing/working with God for His purposes? We can’t take credit for Him answering our prayer, but is it possible that someone goes to hell because we didn’t pray? Or goes to heaven because we did? In that sense are we not God’s co-workers? When I find out someone is praying for me, my natural response is to thank them, that is, to recognize a debt to them, that is, that I owe them something. God, being just, similarly would reward those who pray. Hmmmm.

 

[Reformed1]

Thanks for the reference. I don’t think it did. It did, however, bring up a complication: when we pray for someone’s salvation, is that a work that we perform? If God chooses to answer that prayer, and someone is saved (leaving out, for the purposes of this thread, what that means), are we not cooperating, that is to say, synergizing/working with God for His purposes? We can’t take credit for Him answering our prayer, but is it possible that someone goes to hell because we didn’t pray? Or goes to heaven because we did? In that sense are we not God’s co-workers? When I find out someone is praying for me, my natural response is to thank them, that is, to recognize a debt to them, that is, that I owe them something. God, being just, similarly would reward those who pray. Hmmmm.

If you are speaking of synergism and monergism, I usually think of synergistic theology teaching that you have to do something in order to be saved. In other words is salvation dependent upon God alone or God and man?

You could in turn argue that faith is required, we all agree on that, and that faith does require some “effort” on our part and that would also make me synergistic as well.

Fortunately, my thoughts don’t run deep enough to have a meaningful discussion on this topic.

 

[Truthstalker]

If you are speaking of synergism and monergism, I usually think of synergistic theology teaching that you have to do something in order to be saved. In other words is salvation dependent upon God alone or God and man?

You could in turn argue that faith is required, we all agree on that, and that faith does require some “effort” on our part and that would also make me synergistic as well.

Fortunately, my thoughts don’t run deep enough to have a meaningful discussion on this topic.

Faith is a gift - Ephesians 2:8. We can take no credit for it. Any reward is a gift from God, not earned. This thought is at the root of monergism.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this discussion and hope you don’t drop out.

 

[Reformed1]

Faith is a gift - Ephesians 2:8. We can take no credit for it. Any reward is a gift from God, not earned. This thought is at the root of monergism.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this discussion and hope you don’t drop out.

Faith is a gift, but one can argue that the recipient of that gift (faith) has to do something in the exercise of faith.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fortunately, my thoughts don’t run deep enough to have a meaningful discussion on this topic.

I don’t know Reformed1 from Adam, so I can not comment on this particular situation or what it is that would prompt this statement. . .I am not insinuating ANYTHING.

BUT, with that said, I am ever-curious why, in conversations such as this one, an oft-made excuse to discontinue the topic is because “it doesn’t matter that much” or “I’m not ‘there’ yet” or “there are just some things I can’t know” or as Reformed1 has put it, “my thoughts don’t run deep enough”?

This is tangental and not meant to derail the thread. . .Forgive me. But I do have a point that pertains.

If there’s anything about Calvin, he was thought out and systematic. Now, as Catholics, we would argue he was wrong, but I was hoping that Calvinists would at least be able to explain why they believe he was right.

Which brings to mind a silly thing I once heard. . .“the best way to convince a Calvinist he is wrong is to have him read Calvin.”

 

[JaneFrances]

Faith is a gift, but one can argue that the recipient of that gift (faith) has to do something in the exercise of faith.

NO, NO, NO. . .it’s a slippery slope from here, Reformed1!!! You may find yourself a Catholic just yet!

 

[Reformed1]

I’m follwoing closely and I think we’re close to an understanding, but I’d like to dwell a bit on the text in bold.

You are asking first if people are capable of doing good works on their own, without grace. And the obvious answer would be no.

THEN, you ask if people are capable of doing good works on their own, with grace.

By asking this question, in this way, you have presented the paradox within the question itself.

Not that I find it arguable. No more arguable than, say, how One can be ALL God and ALL human.

A couple of things more. . .

What is the context, then?

In 1 Cor 3, it seems as though St. Paul is PRECISELY talking about the path to salvation. In this chapter particularly, he speaks clearly about “The Day” (3:13). What Day is this? Does this not refer to judgement towards salvation? Is he, then, not talking earlier about maturity and growth in spirit as a path towards salvation? In fact, just 4 verses following his teaching on cooperation with God, he makes this very statement: “if a man’s building burns, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as one fleeing through fire.”

Hmmmm. . .sounds like salvation IS the context.

AND THEN. . .all you have to do to find the context of 2 Cor. 6:1 is read on to 2 Cor. 6:2, which says: “For he says, “In an acceptable time I have heard you; on a day of salvation I have helped you.” Now, is the acceptable time! Now is the day of salvation.”

Again, that sounds like salvation IS the context.

Could you please explain how the two verses cited are NOT pertaining to “how salvation occurs”?

And. . .

I’d like to add to the pot this particular passage of Sacred Scripture. Get your Bibles. It’s St. Paul’s second letter to Timothy, chapter 4, verses 6-8. Do these verses speak about how salvation occurs?

Do you agree with the following?
Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians.

 

[Truthstalker]

Faith is a gift, but one can argue that the recipient of that gift (faith) has to do something in the exercise of faith.

Did you mean that? Are you throwing some solas out the window so easily? (fide and gratia)?

This is a precipitously Catholic statement. I think you’re saying “one can argue” but you won’t make that argument, as you advance this statement against TULIP.

 

[Truthstalker]

Do you agree with the following?
Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians.

Do I agree with that as a definition, or do I agree with the view?
If the former, that was defined pretty much that way in the OP. If the latter, the question in the OP is whether Catholics agree with monergism. I’m not sure what “agent”, and “effects” mean: in chemical reactions, for example, an agent can be necessary to effect a reaction that it is involved in neither the beginning or end of the process. I think you mean in your definition that no one else, such as the individual who is getting converted, has a role to play in the conversion except the Holy Spirit. Since both the Father and the Son are at work in conversion, I would dispute that.

 

[JaneFrances]

Do you agree with the following?
Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians.

You didn’t exactly answer ANY of my questions, but I’ll answer this one.

I agree that some people would define mongerism as you have above.

However, like TS, I am concerned that you have offered a very limited equation as such. I would be very opposed to any definition that excludes the Savior and the Father. Also, I am particularly impressed by God’s Sovereign Will which has effectively bestowed grace through, as St. Peter puts it, “generous distributors of [His] manifold grace.” As I believe that regeneration is a movement of grace, I can not ignore the possiblity that our potter would see fit to use both lofty and lowly vessels to pour out his grace upon us.

God’s life, through regeneration, is wholly a gift. However, a gift must be given and recieved. I’m not much of one for chemistry, but I do know how gift giving works.

 

[Bishopite]

[Reformed1;1791778]If you are speaking of synergism and monergism, I usually think of synergistic theology teaching that you have to do something in order to be saved. In other words is salvation dependent upon God alone or God and man?

Salvation is not an either or situation (either God does everything and I do nothing), sure God is the cause of salvation, yet man can coperate with His freely given grace or can deny that grace.

Council of Orange 529

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be
cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to
be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

Conclusion of the council of Orange 529…

“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after
grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, **if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.” **

You could in turn argue that faith is required, we all agree on that, and that faith does require some “effort” on our part and that would also make me synergistic as well.

Sure faith is required and so does coperation with the grace God gives us; that’s the language of 1 Cor 9, Rom 8:28, 2 Cor 6:1 and Acts 7:51 where Stephen tells the Sanhedrin “You always resist the Holy Spirit!”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What is the context, then?

In 1 Cor 3, it seems as though St. Paul is PRECISELY talking about the path to salvation. In this chapter particularly, he speaks clearly about “The Day” (3:13). What Day is this? Does this not refer to judgement towards salvation? Is he, then, not talking earlier about maturity and growth in spirit as a path towards salvation? In fact, just 4 verses following his teaching on cooperation with God, he makes this very statement: “if a man’s building burns, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as one fleeing through fire.”

Hmmmm. . .sounds like salvation IS the context.

AND THEN. . .all you have to do to find the context of 2 Cor. 6:1 is read on to 2 Cor. 6:2, which says: “For he says, “In an acceptable time I have heard you; on a day of salvation I have helped you.” Now, is the acceptable time! Now is the day of salvation.”

Again, that sounds like salvation IS the context.

Could you please explain how the two verses cited are NOT pertaining to “how salvation occurs”?

And. . .

I’d like to add to the pot this particular passage of Sacred Scripture. Get your Bibles. It’s St. Paul’s second letter to Timothy, chapter 4, verses 6-8. Do these verses speak about how salvation occurs?

Good work.

I just read through the canons of the Council of Orange as posted on a Calvinist website. They made the challenge to the reader to read it carefully and decide whether the Catholic Church or the Reformed Churches are more historically faithful. Among its goodies are an effacious sacrament of baptism, a condemnation of double predestination, and a statements that sound a lot more like the Catholic Church than like the Reformed. The only way it could be the Catholic Church is if you think the Catholic Church is what Calvin thought it was, which it never was. To my thinking (to say it a third time) it is far more Catholic than Reformed, and that is fairly clear. They should read it carefully.

Oh, bother.

Its interesting how many Calvinist pages I have noticed who praise the Council of Orange yet when confronted on what it actually teaches (eg Baptismal regeneration, free will, etc) they act as if they had never read it before.

Do you agree with the following?
Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians.

One term I always confront reformed protestants with is the term “regeneration”. They always use that term, yet as far as I know it occurs once in Scripture…Titus 3:5…
4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost” is none other than Baptism! If you want to use the term “regeneration” in your theology you need to use it according to how Scripture uses it. Nowhere in that passage is Baptism seen as a work/merit of man.

 

[Bishopite]

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, [/INDENT]

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost” is none other than Baptism! If you want to use the term “regeneration” in your theology you need to use it according to how Scripture uses it. Nowhere in that passage is Baptism seen as a work/merit of man.

To be fair, some reformed Protestants believe that baptism regenerates you, however unfortunate is that there are a number of different groups of “reformed” Protestants who believe differently on what the nature of regeneration is and what baptism does so there is no concensus among them.

Baptism can’t be a personal work being that one doesn’t baptize him or herself but it is accomplished by someone else. The early anabaptists during the reformation baptized themselves (out of spite) and since that time no group I have ever heard of baptizes themselves, which again would be antithetical to Scripture anyway.