Catholic Monergism

[Contarini]

I THINK this is quickly answered, so it shouldn’t take too long.

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.

In Catholic theology, if a Catholic winds up in heaven, all the glory and honor and credit belong to God. If a Catholic goes to hell, it is that particular Catholic’s fault. So a Catholic who is a saint is a monergist. Catholics only get credit for their going to hell. Any merit a Catholic obtains is actually not to their own credit, but an act of grace, and is actually a gift of God. A Catholic cannot take credit for anything - even for an act of free will.

Comments?

This is true but I’m not sure how significant it is. When you find someone (at least, someone well trained in one of the major branches of Christianity) who takes credit for his own salvation, let me know (not least so I can keep my distance when lightning strikes).

All Christians are monergists in the sense you mean. On the other hand, there certainly were Christians in the 16th century (Erasmus, for instance) who spoke as if God contributes some (indeed most) to salvation and human beings contribute a little (a very little as Erasmus put it). I tend to agree with Louis Bouyer that both Erasmus and Luther were thinking mistakenly in zero-sum terms (Bouyer blamed nominalism–I’m not sure if this is fair or not). It doesn’t work that way. So to me the real debate is between the Reformed and Lutheran champions of monergism on the one hand, who do think of salvation in some sense in zero-sum terms, and what I believe to be the orthodox view on the other–that God works in us in such a way that our works are His.

Edwin

 

[Truthstalker]

God works in us in such a way that our works are His.

I like that.

In a synergistic model, one must establish how self-credit for salvation is denied. God is still the author and perfecter of our faith. Can we take credit, or only receive gifts, giving God all the glory? How is crediting ourselves precluded in a synergistic system?

 

[Contarini]

I like that.

In a synergistic model, one must establish how self-credit for salvation is denied. God is still the author and perfecter of our faith. Can we take credit, or only receive gifts, giving God all the glory? How is crediting ourselves precluded in a synergistic system?

The same way it is in a “monergistic” system. That’s why the dichotomy doesn’t work in a first place. It’s all the work of God. It’s not an either/or, because God is not a creature. Our [good] actions are God’s more intimately than they are ours. As the Orthodox liturgy puts it: “Thine own from thine own we offer thee.” Or as Augustine put it: “When God rewards our merits, He crowns His own gifts.”

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I THINK this is quickly answered, so it shouldn’t take too long.

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.

In Catholic theology, if a Catholic winds up in heaven, all the glory and honor and credit belong to God. If a Catholic goes to hell, it is that particular Catholic’s fault. So a Catholic who is a saint is a monergist. Catholics only get credit for their going to hell. Any merit a Catholic obtains is actually not to their own credit, but an act of grace, and is actually a gift of God. A Catholic cannot take credit for anything - even for an act of free will.

Comments?

Sounds just right to me I think it’s implicit, & necessarily so, in any position that tries to insist on the reality & non-confusion of God’s activity with man’s.​

I can’t see any Biblical or dogmatic problems with it - rather the reverse, in fact. It would need careful explanation, of course; but what in the Bible or in Christian doctrine doesn’t ?

 

[Bishopite]

The same way it is in a “monergistic” system. That’s why the dichotomy doesn’t work in a first place. It’s all the work of God. It’s not an either/or, because God is not a creature. Our [good] actions are God’s more intimately than they are ours. As the Orthodox liturgy puts it: “Thine own from thine own we offer thee.” Or as Augustine put it: “When God rewards our merits, He crowns His own gifts.”

Edwin

I like that quote from Augustine. Only Christ can merit any good in the strict sense, we merit good (reward good) in an analogous sense in that when we cooperate with God’s grace and do good works He crowns His works in us; this is also the gist of Matthew 25:40…

“And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Even though we are doing the good works “for one of these least brothers” we are actually doing them for Jesus.

And it is we who are doing the good works, for we will be judged by our obedience in those works. Romans 2:5-8 says…

“By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”

 

[Castleman711]

I just google’d “Synergism/Catholic answers” and I found this absurd post from a few years back.

First! Monergism (one energy) is a protestant view, which is erroneous. The Catholic, and Orthodox position is synergistic (two energies).

Now, I really don’t want to get to deep into this, but I guess I will have to explain myself a little bit.

1. We profess two wills in Christ. One will in the Godhead, and one will in Christ’s human nature. Protestants, mainly reformed, have a faulty views of nature, and they profess that after the fall, our nature became “sinful” and we no more have a natural will, but a will in bondage. This is erroneous, because Christ in the incarnation, had to be consubstantial with our nature, so that He could raise it. So, in turn, reformers deny dyothelitism, and embrace monothelitism in the incarnation, because you cannot profess that the human will the Christ assumed, was not in bondage, and you must profess that His will in the Godhead was the only will active, which is in denial of Chalcedon, which professes two wills in Christ, and Dyothelitism, and not Monothelitism. This leads into the Monergism vs Synergism conversation in the category of soteriology. You profess, that God’s divine will must do away with your nature, and be the only will in your salvation. This is also denied in the councils. We profess, that our will, along with God’s divine will are working together (synergism).

You also profess that the purpose of Christ’s assumption, was to do what Adam couldn’t do, under the works of the law, which denies the purpose of Him needing to raise and deify our nature, and in turn, no purpose of Him assuming our nature. It is an impossible stance to hold, and the erroneous view is the protestant view, and not the Catholic view. The Catholic Church is faithful to the councils, and the reformers parted from it, but claimed to hold to it.