Shirt a Phobia

Sample Page

Not to be confused with Monoenergism.

In Christian theology, monergism primarily denotes the belief that God alone is the agent of human salvation. Divine monergism is most commonly associated with Augustinian, Lutheran and Reformed/Calvinist soteriology, the latter of which includes certain strands of Anglicanism. It is also a key component of some forms of Christian universalism. Secondarily, monergism can also refer to the belief that humans alone determine their salvation. Human monergism is commonly associated with Pelagianism. Both perspectives contrast with synergism, which asserts that divine and human cooperation is essential for the conversion process.

Definition

Monergism derives from the Greek monos (sole) and ergon (work) and refers to a single source acting alone.[1][2] In Christian theology, it primarily denotes the belief that God is the sole agent in human salvation.[3][4] This view, known as “divine monergism,” is characteristic of Calvinist and Augustinian soteriology.[5] It describes a process in which God alone authors for every step of salvation, without human participation.[6][7] Monergism can also refer to the belief that humans are the sole agents of their salvation, a view known as “human monergism” and generally associated with Pelagianism.[8][9] Both perspectives contrast with synergism, which holds that divine and human cooperation is necessary in the conversion process.[4]

Historical developments

Human monergism

Before Augustine of Hippo (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.[10][11] Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.[12] The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as “human monergism”.[8][9]

Divine monergism

Augustine presents Lydia of Thyatira as an example of monergistic salvation.[13]

Augustine was the first to articulate the concept of divine monergism within Christianity.[5][10] In response to Pelagianism, he argued that prevenient grace is necessary to prepare the human will for conversion.[14] This view incorporated a compatibilist form of theological determinism,[15] and implied a form of unconditional election.[16][17] Divine monergism later became a foundational principle in Lutheran theology, most notably expressed in the Formula of Concord (1577).[18][19] It also played a central role in Calvinist theology,[5] shaping Reformed confessions such as the Canons of Dort (1618–19)[20] and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).[21]

Theological interpretations

Divine monergism and ordo salutis

In orthodox Calvinism, the classical ordo salutis follows a sequence of effectual calling, then regeneration, and finally faith.[22] Lutheranism largely mirrors this sequence.[22] Some theologians argue that because the first steps of effectual calling and regeneration are passive, then the whole conversion must also be entirely passive and monergistic in nature.[23] However, certain Calvinists advocate for a revised ordo, still claimed to uphold monergism, while placing faith before regeneration.[24][22] A similar modification occurs in Molinist-influenced Calvinist revisions, which likewise reorder the sequence to place faith before regeneration.[25][26][27] Despite these differences, both orthodox and revised Calvinist perspectives affirm that the steps of salvation are ultimately determined by God.[28][3][6]

Synergistic language within a divine monergistic framework

In a divine monergistic framework, such as the one found in Calvinism, every stage of the process of human salvation is understood to be monergistic.[6] Nevertheless, some Calvinist theologians sometimes argue that conversion may be described as synergistic.[29][30] Others extend this synergistic language to sanctification.[31][32] However, within a monergistic framework, the human will is not understood to function as an independent initiating cause.[33] Consequently, when some Calvinist theologians describe a stage of salvation as synergistic, they typically mean only that the human being is willing and responsible during that stage, without thereby denying divine predetermination.[34] In such cases, “synergism” refers merely to a form of human cooperation grounded in compatibilist assumptions about human agency, while remaining fully determinist in nature.[35]

Divine monergism and Christian universalism

Within a Christian worldview affirming divine monergism, such as that of the Augustinian or the Reformed traditions, God can theoretically elect whom He wills based on His sovereignty.[36] If He chose to elect all humans, their past and future sins would be forgiven, and all would irresistibly come to faith during their lifetime. This scenario constitutes a necessary form of Christian universalism, which is rejected by Reformed or Augustinian theologians.[36][37] They commonly argue that the greatest good occurs when God is maximally glorified, and they believe this does not happen in a world where everyone is saved.[38][39] Nevertheless, some Protestant thinkers, such as Thomas Talbott, have proposed an alternative form of monergistic universalism. According to this view, God’s irresistible grace will ultimately extend to every individual—even beyond death—thus explaining why not all are brought to faith within their lifetimes.[40] A further development of this idea appears in another form of monergistic universalism, articulated for example by Hosea Ballou.[41][42] In this framework, salvation is granted independently of personal faith and remains accessible to all at any point in time.[43]

Human monergism

In a human monergistic framework, the human is the sole cause of the actions leading to salvation. God is understood only to grant initial spiritual capacities, without further involvement in the process. Pelagius taught that a human’s ability to act correctly was a gift of God.[44][45] He considered grace to consist primarily of external instructions, typically through the Scriptures.[46] According to this interpretation, an element of grace necessary for salvation can be found in Pelagius’s understanding, and his view may be described as synergistic for this reason.[47] However, for Pelagius, “grace” does not involve any direct divine action during a man’s life, remaining external to him.[48][49] Consequently, theologians generally associate this position with human monergism.[50][8][9][51][49]

Denominational views

Lutheran theology

An illustration of Article XVIII (‘Of Free Will’) of the Augsburg Confession.[52]

Martin Luther (1483–1546) limited monergism strictly to soteriological aspects.[53] He asserted that monergism applied to both election (to salvation) and reprobation.[54][55] Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), however, rejected monergism after Luther’s death in favor of synergism.[56] Melanchthon’s stance influenced many Lutherans of his time throughout Europe to adopt synergism.[57] The “synergistic controversy” arose when Gnesio-Lutherans, citing Luther’s monergistic stance, opposed John Pfeffinger’s synergistic views on the role of human will in conversion.[58]

By 1580, Melanchthon’s view had lost prominence, and the Book of Concord (1580) affirmed soteriological monergism in relation to election (to salvation), but explicitly rejected its application to reprobation.[59] Accordingly, the contemporary Lutheran Church continues to uphold this view.[18][60] While monergism remains the official stance, Lutheran history includes both monergist and synergist views.[61][18]

Concerning preservation, the Lutheran confessions state that election unto salvation is, among other things, a cause of final perseverance.[62][63] Similarly, sanctification is generally described as monergistic.[64] This implies that sanctification is caused by the Holy Spirit, as the Small Catechism emphasizes.[65] More precisely, the Formula of Concord states that, within this process, humans consciously and willingly collaborate with the Holy Spirit.[66] This does not contradict that, within a soteriological monergistic framework, God is understood as the ultimate cause of the human actions, including sanctification.[67][68]

Reformed theology

In orthodox Reformed theology, divine monergism is understood as operating through an exhaustive divine providence.[28] For example, Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) viewed that everything, including human salvation and reprobation, was determined by God.[69] In contrast, “libertarian Calvinism”, a revision described by Oliver D. Crisp in his book Deviant Calvinism (2014), is a soteriological monergism.[70] Historically, this perspective has remained a minority view within Calvinism.[71]

Anglican theology

Anglicanism originally inclined toward monergism due to its Lutheran and Calvinist heritage, but it eventually accommodated both monergistic and synergistic interpretations.[72][73] The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, finalized in 1571, serve as the confession of faith for the Anglican tradition.[74] They reflect a complex interplay of Calvinist influence, Catholic practice, and intentional ambiguity within individual articles.[75][76] Today, in some Anglican denominations, clergy are required to acknowledge the Articles, while in others, they are not.[74]

Anglicanism has historically leaned more toward monergism, particularly in its early phases.[77] Early Anglican leaders such as Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) held Reformed views that significantly shaped the Church’s initial doctrinal direction.[72] However, following the Stuart Restoration (1660) through the mid-18th century, Calvinist theology became less prominent within Anglicanism.[78] Afterward, the Evangelical movement within Anglicanism revived and emphasized its Reformed roots.[79] Related groups like the Church Society tend to interpret Article 10 of the Thirty-nine Articles in a monergistic sense.[80]

Conversely, High church and Anglo-Catholic traditions have tended toward synergism, drawing on the theology of the early Church Fathers and emphasizing the sacramental life, human free will, and cooperation with divine grace. Proto-Arminian figure Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626) or Jeremy Taylor upheld the importance of the human response to God’s call.[76] In the 18th and 19th centuries, theologians such as George Pretyman Tomline and Harold Browne also interpreted Article 10 in a synergistic light.[81][82] In the 20th century, this synergistic stance was famously exemplified by Anglican writer C. S. Lewis, who emphasized the necessity of human free will in cooperating with divine grace.[83]

Objections

Since all forms of divine monergism (both soteriological and exhaustive) rely on unconditional election, God determines the fate of individuals, whether felicity or reprobation, either directly or indirectly. When divine monergism permits the existence of some reprobates, it can give the impression that God’s love is both restricted and arbitrary.[84]

Monoenergism, the heretical belief that Christ had only one “energy” (energeia), was propagated during the first half of the 7th century.[85] In historical soteriological forms of divine monergism, Jesus was seen as being predetermined to obey the Father’s will.[85] Consequently, the Father alone was the commanding energy, to which Christ’s energy was entirely subjected. Some have suggested that monergism logically entails monoenergism.[86] Conversely, if Christ was not predetermined, this would allow for the possibility of a non-monoenergistic synergy.[87]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ Allison 2016, “Monergism”. “From the Greek (monos, “sole”; ergon, “work”), monergism refers to a sole source that works redemption”.
  2. ^ Sproul 2009, ch. 6. “A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mon-means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn-means “together with”.”
  3. ^ a b Allison 2016, “Monergism”‌. “[In monergism] God is the single agent that operates the salvation of people”.
  4. ^ a b McKim 1996, p. 177.
  5. ^ a b c Barrett 2013, p. xxvii. “[D]ivine monergism is the view of Augustine and the Augustinians. […] Calvinism appeals to Augustine for its view of efficacious grace.”
  6. ^ a b c Horton 2011b, ch. Perseverance of the saints.. “The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints reflects a consistently monergistic view of salvation as entirely due to God’s grace alone from beginning to the end”.
  7. ^ Barrett 2013, p. xx.
  8. ^ a b c Barrett 2013, p. xxvii‌. “[H]umanistic monergism is the view of Pelagius and Pelagianism”.
  9. ^ a b c Peterson & Williams 2004, p. 36. “[T]he humanistic monergism of Pelagius.”
  10. ^ a b Schaff 1997, § 173. “In anthropology and soteriology [Lactantius] follows the synergism which, until Augustine, was almost universal.”
  11. ^ Wiley 1941, pp. 234–235. “Augustine, himself, distinctly advocated this [synergistic] position at first, but in his controversy with the Pelagians adopted a strictly monergistic system. He held to the total inability of man to exercise good works, and hence, until the individual was regenerated, there was no power to exercise faith. Grace, therefore, was bestowed solely upon the elect through effectual calling, and the atonement limited to those for whom it availed. Previous to this time, synergism had been the dominant theory, i.e., that the individual in his recovery from sin, works with God through grace universally bestowed as a free gift, in such a manner as to condition the result.”
  12. ^ Puchniak 2008, p. 124.
  13. ^ Schaff 1893, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints. (41).
  14. ^ McGrath 2001, p. 356.
  15. ^ Crisp 2014, ch. “Traditional Augustinianism”. “I take it that most traditional Augustinians […] align themselves with the doctrines of election and theological determinism of a compatibilist variety.”
  16. ^ McGrath 2005, pp. 107–110.
  17. ^ James 1998, p. 103. “If one asks, whether double predestination is a logical implication or development of Augustine’s doctrine, the answer must be in the affirmative.”
  18. ^ a b c Horton 2011, ch. 9.2, n. 11.
  19. ^ Jacobs 1911, p. 569, Formula of Concord : Solid declaration, part 4, ch. 2.2.8. “Man of himself, or from his natural powers, cannot do anything or help towards his conversion, and that conversion is not only in part, but altogether an operation, gift, and present, and work of the Holy Ghost alone, who accomplishes and effects it by His power and might, through the Word, in the intellect, will, and heart of man”.
  20. ^ CRC 2011, III/IV.10. “The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to human effort, as though one distinguishes oneself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity God chose his own in Christ, so within time God effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son […]”.
  21. ^ Westminster Assembly 1946, ch. 7, art. 7.3b. “He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.”
  22. ^ a b c Demarest 2006, pp. 36–44.
  23. ^ Kirkpatrick 2018, p. 148. “Because regeneration (a passive aspect in [monergism]) is the work of God alone, such instrumental causation makes conversion (its effect) passive”.
  24. ^ Barrett 2013, pp. xxiv–xxv. “Erickson, Lewis, and Demarest are defining monergism differently and more broadly than the Reformed tradition has defined it in the past, and the modified scheme, which places conversion between effectual calling and regeneration, is nothing short of a novelty as it is without precedent among Reformed theologians”.
  25. ^ Lemke 2010, pp. 76–77.
  26. ^ Keathley 2010, ch. 3.
  27. ^ Ware 2004, pp. 114–115.
  28. ^ a b Robinson 2022, p. 379. “[T]he heart of Calvinism is as monergism that effectively makes God the sole actor in human history […]”.
  29. ^ Sproul 2002, p. 73. “Once the operative grace of regeneration is given, the rest of the process is synergistic. That is, after the soul has been changed by effectual or irresistible grace, the person himself chooses Christ. God does not make the choice for him.”
  30. ^ Sproul 1986, p. 118. “faith is not monergistic.”
  31. ^ Naselli 2008, p. 54. “A monergistic view of regeneration is biblical, but a monergistic view of sanctification is not.”
  32. ^ Sproul 2021. “Sanctification, however, includes our efforts. We say it is synergistic because both God and we are doing something.”
  33. ^ Clark 1961, pp. 237–238. “God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign.”
  34. ^ Alexander & Johnson 2016, p. 4. “Calvinists are committed to saying that moral responsibility and any sort of free will that is necessary for moral responsibility are compatible with whatever sort of determinism is entailed by Calvinist views of providence.”
  35. ^ Berkhof 1949, p. 534. “When it is said that man takes part in the work of sanctification, this does not mean that man is an independent agent in the work, so as to make it partly the work of God and partly the work of man; but merely, that God effects the work in part through the instrumentality of man as a rational being, by requiring of him prayerful and intelligent co-operation with the Spirit.”
  36. ^ a b McCall 2008, p. 207.
  37. ^ Talbott 1999, ch. 4. “[T]he Augustinians […] believe strongly in both the sovereignty of God’s will (proposition (2)) and the doctrine of eternal punishment (proposition (3)), and finally reject the idea that God sincerely wills the salvation of all human sinners (proposition (1));”
  38. ^ McCall 2008, p. . “God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his sovereign grace (Eph 1:6, 12, 14; Ro. 9:22-23)” [John Piper, Are There Two Wills in God? p. 130] […] Piper’s final answer to the question of “why these occasions of sin and suffering?” is that this is the best possible world, and it is further that this is the best possible world because it is the world in which God is the most glorified. The greatest good then, is this: it is God being maximally glorified in the possible world that glorifies him the most”..
  39. ^ Crisp 2014, ch. “The Problem of Arbitrariness”.
  40. ^ Talbott 1999, ch. 12. “[T]he New Testament picture nonetheless warrants, I believe, a stronger view, what some have called necessary universalism: the view that, given the nature of God’s love, wisdom, and power, it is logically impossible that his grace should fail to reconcile all sinners to himself.”
  41. ^ Crisp 2014, ch. “Augustinian Universalism Expounded”. “Augustinian universalism is perfectly compatible with the principles that make up the restricted-elect view. […] consider the following argument […] : 1. God decrees to create and elect all human agents. 2. God decrees that the mechanism by which the sin of all human agents is atoned for is the death of Christ. 2. The sin and guilt accruing to all sinful human agents is transferred to Christ, who is punished on their account on the cross. Thus, All human agents are saved; none are lost, and none are in hell. This is a version of necessary universalism, the view that it is necessarily the case that all human agents are saved, in this particular case because of a divine decree to that effect.
  42. ^ Ballou 1834, p. 155-156.
  43. ^ Bird 2013, ch. 5.5.1.1. “Truth be told, the only true monergism is universalism, since God alone does everything for salvation and no response, not even faith, is required; […]”.
  44. ^ Dodaro 2004, p. 79.
  45. ^ Harrison 2016, p. 81.
  46. ^ Harrison 2016, pp. 79, 81, 82.
  47. ^ Wiley 1941, p. 40. “Grace, as Pelagius viewed it, was merely external instruction; while with Augustine it was closely allied with inward or effectual calling. Hence salvation with Pelagius was synergistic, or by means of co-operative grace; while with Augustine salvation was monergistic, that is, grace operated through predestination and election.”
  48. ^ Harrison 2016, p. 82. “[For Pelagius] the operation of divine grace as being merely external”.
  49. ^ a b Schaff 1997, § 146. “Pelagianism, […] represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit to conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary.”
  50. ^ Bounds 2011, p. 35. “Pelagianism expresses the strongest form of human monergism. […] There is no inherited tendency, bent, proclivity or enslavement to sin. People are free to choose to follow God or not. Obedience to Gods law is within every persons power.”
  51. ^ Kirkpatrick 2018, p. 10. “[S]alvation cannot be Pelagian (human-monergism) […]”.
  52. ^ Jacobs 1911, Formula of Concord : Solid declaration, part 4,‌.
  53. ^ Straton 2020, p. 159. “Luther: A person’s will is in bondage to sin and cannot, without the grace of God, respond to the gospel. However, apart from salvation-related issues, people can choose freely”.
  54. ^ Horton 2011, ch. 9.2. “In fact, Luther affirmed both election and reprobation in the strongest terms.”
  55. ^ Sammons 2020, p. 60. “Luther presents double predestination clearly, basing it on his understanding of God.”
  56. ^ Bente 1921, ch. 14.154. “Melanchthon repudiated the monergism of Luther, espoused and defended the powers of free will in spiritual matters, and thought, argued, spoke, and wrote in terms of synergism. Indeed, Melanchthon must be regarded as the father of both synergism and the rationalistic methods employed in its defense, and as the true father also of the modern rationalistico-synergistic theology represented by such distinguished men as Von Hofmann, Thomasius, Kahnis, Luthardt.”
  57. ^ Olson 2009, p. 14. “Because of Melanchthon’s influence on post-Luther Lutheranism, many Lutherans throughout Europe adopted a synergistic outlook on salvation, eschewing unconditional predestination and affirming that grace is resistible”.
  58. ^ Kolb 1973, p. 263.
  59. ^ Horton 2011, ch. 9.2‌. “In fact, Luther affirmed both election and reprobation in the strongest terms. The Lutheran confessions, however, affirm God’s unconditional election of those on Whom he will mercy but deny his reprobation of the rest as an actual decreee. The confessional Lutheran and Reformed theologies differ with respect to the decree of reprobation, the extent of atonement, and the resistibility of God´s grace, they are united in their defense of soteriological monergism (i.e., God alone working in salvation), grounded in his unconditional election of sinners in Jesus Christ.” [emphasis in original].
  60. ^ Sammons 2020, p. 62. “While there are some in the Lutheran tradition who adhere to single predestination, it is apparent that Luther himself did not.”
  61. ^ Pinson 2022, p. 147. “Despite the fact that many scholars neatly divide Lutherans into “monergistic” and “synergistic” camps, no good Lutheran ever wanted to be known as a synergist. This include famous scholastic Lutherans such as Aegidius Hunnius, Johann Gerhard, and Johannes Andreas Quendstedt. Most Lutherans throughout history have believed like Melanchthon, that […] God personally elects individuals in eternity past intuitu Christi meriti fide apprehendi. This is precisely what Arminius believed.”
  62. ^ Jacobs 1911, Formula of Concord : Solid declaration, ch. 11, par. 8. “The eternal election of God, however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto […]”.
  63. ^ Jacobs 1911, Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, art. 11, par. 21–22. “Thus far is the mystery of predestination revealed in God’s Word, that He will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which He has begun in them, if they adhere to God’s Word, pray diligently, abide in God’s goodness, and faithfully use the gifts received. And that finally He will eternally save and glorify in eternal life those whom He has elected, called, and justified.”
  64. ^ Lioy & Falconer 2019, p. 212. “To recap the Lutheran perspective, ‘justification is a monergistic act’ (Cooper 2012:6) in which the Father ‘imputes’ the merits of the Son to sinners. Their faith in him is the basis for the Father declaring them to be righteous. ‘Sanctification’ is also a ‘monergistic act’ whereby God’s renewing grace (provided by the Spirit through Word and sacrament) operates in the lives of believers.”
  65. ^ Jacobs 1911, Small Catechism, Explanation of the Third Article of the Creed. “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him, but the Holy Spirit has called me by the gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.”
  66. ^ Jacobs 1911, Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, art. 2, par. 90. “But the intellect and will of the unregenerate man are nothing else than subiectum convertendum, that is, that which is to be converted, it being the intellect and will of a spiritually dead man, in whom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal, towards which work man’s will that is to be converted does nothing, but suffers God alone to work in him, until he is regenerate; and then he works also with the Holy Ghost [cooperates] that which is pleasing to God in other good works that follow, in the way and to the extent fully set forth above”
  67. ^ Cooper 2015, ch. 8. “Sanctification is initiated through the work of God apart from human effort”.
  68. ^ Kettenring 2007, pp. 26–27. “[Gerard] Forde said, with regard to sanctification, that “There is a kind of growth and progress, it is to be hoped, but it is growth in grace—a growth in coming to be captivated ore and more, if we can so speak, by the totality, the unconditionality of the grace of God.””
  69. ^ James 1998b. “Zwingli attributes both to the divine will in the same way, constructing an absolutely symmetrical doctrine of double predestination. The cause and means of both election and reprobation are precisely the same. For Zwingli, God is the exclusive and immediate cause of all things.”
  70. ^ Olson 2015. “Crisp’s “libertarian Calvinism” is not consistent with the vast majority of modern and contemporary Calvinisms in the U.S., […] And it is not acceptable to Arminians because of its soteriological monergism […]”.
  71. ^ Moreland 2001, p. 155. “Indeed, throughout history there have been Calvinists who have accepted libertarian freedom for non-moral or non-salvific decisions”.
  72. ^ a b MacCulloch 1996, p. 617.
  73. ^ Olson 1999, p. 535. “Many Anglicans follow Richard Hooker’s brand of synergism […]”.
  74. ^ a b EncyclopaediaE 2021.
  75. ^ Milton 2002, p. 396.
  76. ^ a b McClintock & Strong 1880.
  77. ^ Salter 2018. “The code and creed of Anglicanism is richly Trinitarian (divine self-disclosure), soteriologically monergistic (grace alone), and warmly pastoral (godly care) in its approach to the people it serves within and beyond the bounds of its membership.”
  78. ^ Griffith & Radcliff 2022, p. 1. “From the Restoration to the mid-eighteenth century Calvinist theology was hardly evident in Anglicanism.”
  79. ^ Chapman 2006, p. 68.
  80. ^ Woolford 2017. “Article 10 underwrites monergistic (from mono — ‘one,’ and ergo — ‘to work’) doctrine of justification. […] It teaches that our state of spiritual death — the utter inability of the bound human will — means that everything that goes into our coming to spiritual life has to belong to God. His is the whole initiative; his is the decisive, effective will.”
  81. ^ Browne 1865, pp. 280–281. “The doctrine of Scripture, however, is evidently expressed in the words of our Article [X]. God must give the will, must set the will free from its natural slavery, before it can turn to good; but then it moves in the freedom which He has bestowed upon it, and never so truly uses that freedom, as when it follows the motions of the Spirit. Yet clearly there remains some power to resist and to do evil. For, though “those that have no will to good things God maketh them to will; […] Yet, nevertheless, He enforceth not the will.””
  82. ^ Tomline 1818, pp. 251–255. “The joint agency of God and man, in the work of human salvation, is pointed out in the following passage: “Let us work out our own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure” […] some sects contend for the irresistible impulses of grace […] [this] opinion seems irreconcilable with the free agency of man […] let the will of man be admitted to be its handmaid, but such an one as is free […] when it is freely excited by the admonitions of preventing grace, when it is prepared as to its affections, strengthened and assisted as to its powers and faculties, a man freely and willingly co-operates with God”.
  83. ^ Dawes 2008, p. 12. “In reading through Lewis’s writings, his synergistic understanding of salvation is quite evident. This makes perfect sense given his belief in a truly free will given to humanity by God.”
  84. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 35, 41, 66.
  85. ^ a b Gifford 2022, p. 180.
  86. ^ Gifford 2022, p. 180‌. “The Augustinian doctrine of predestination, followed closely by the magisterial Reformed, holds that the human will is opposed to the divine (even in Jesus!) and that the paradigm of the relationship of the two natural wills is one of domination rather than cooperation. Thus, Monoernergism results, primarily because Jesus is subject to predestination in that tradition”.
  87. ^ Phillips 2014. “If we say that Christ’s human will was exempt from divine predestination, then it is hard to avoid the implication that there must have been true non-monergistic synergy and co-operation between the divine and the human wills of Christ. But if so, then it is equally hard to see why it would be problematic to assert a similar non-monergistic synergy and co-operation between the divine and the human wills when dealing with the rest of humanity, especially since Christ typified the appropriate relation between humanity and divinity.”

Sources

  • Alexander, David; Johnson, Daniel (2016). Calvinism and the Problem of Evil. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publication.
  • Allison, Gregg R. (2016). The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  • Ballou, Hosea (1834). An Examination of the Doctrine of Future Retribution. Boston: Trumpet Office.
  • Barrett, Matthew (2013). Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing. ISBN 978-1596386433.
  • Bente, Friedrich (1921). Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
  • Berkhof, Louis (1949). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
  • Bird, Michael F. (2013). Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.
  • Bounds, Christopher. T. (2011). “How are People Saved? The Major Views of Salvation with a Focus on Wesleyan Perspectives and their Implications”. Wesley and Methodist Studies. 3: 31–54. doi:10.2307/42909800. JSTOR 42909800.
  • Browne, Harold (1865). Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. New York: H. B. Durand.
  • Chapman, Mark (2006). Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280693-2.
  • Clark, Gordon H. (1961). Religion, Reason, and Revelation. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed.
  • Cooper, Jordan (2015). The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4982-2424-6.
  • CRC (2011). “The Canons of Dort”. Christian Reformed Church in North America. Retrieved 2024-07-09.
  • Crisp, Oliver D. (2014). Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
  • Dawes, Zach (2008). “C.S. Lewis: Calvinist or Classical Arminian?” (PDF). Society of Evangelical Arminians. Retrieved 2026-05-16.
  • Demarest, Bruce (2006). “The ‘Order of Salvation’“. In Feinberg, John S. (ed.). The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton: Good News Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58134-812-5.
  • Dodaro, Robert (2004). Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-45651-7.
  • Gifford, James D. (2022). The Hexagon of Heresy: A Historical and Theological Study of Definitional Divine Simplicity. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
  • Griffith, Bruce; Radcliff, Jason (2022). Grace and Incarnation: The Oxford Movement’s Shaping of the Character of Modern Anglicanism. Cambridge: Pickwick Publications.
  • Harrison, Carol (2016). “Truth in a Heresy?”. The Expository Times. 112 (3): 78–82. doi:10.1177/001452460011200302. S2CID 170152314.
  • Horton, Michael (2011). The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids, MI (US): Zondervan Academic.
  • Horton, Michael (2011b). For Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.
  • Jacobs, Henry Eyster, ed. (1911). The Book of Concord: Or the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: United Lutheran Publication House.
  • James, Frank A. (1998). Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination: The Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer. Oxford: Clarendon.
  • James, Frank A. (1998b). “Neglected Sources of the Reformation Doctrine of Predestination Ulrich Zwingli and Peter Martyr Vermigli”. Modern Reformation. 7 (6): 18–22.
  • Keathley, Kenneth D. (2010). Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.
  • Kettenring, Keith (2007). The Sanctification Connection: An Exploration of Human Participation in Spiritual Growth. Lanham, MD: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7618-3738-1.
  • Kirkpatrick, Daniel (2018). Monergism or Synergism: Is Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone?. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
  • Kolb, Robert (1973). “Six Christian Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity” (PDF). Concordia Theological Monthly. 44 (4).
  • Lemke, Steve (2010). “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Review Essay”. Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry. 7 (1).
  • Lioy, Dan; Falconer, Robert (2019). “Lutheran and Reformed Theology in Conversation”. Conspectus. 27: 192–223.
  • MacCulloch, Diarmaid (1996). Thomas Cranmer: A Life. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-07448-2.
  • McCall, Thomas (2008). “I Believe in Divine Sovereignty” (PDF). Trinity Journal. 29 (2): 219–220.
  • McClintock, John; Strong, James (1880). “Arminianism”. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper and Brothers.
  • McGrath, Alister E. (2001). Christian Theology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
  • McGrath, Alister E. (2005). Iustitia Dei: a history of the Christian doctrine of justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McKim, Donald K. (1996). Westminster dictionary of theological terms (1st ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 0664255116.
  • Moreland, J. P. (2001). “Miracles, Agency, and Theistic Science: A Reply to Steven B. Cowan”. Philosophia Christi. 4 (1).
  • Naselli, Andrew David (2008). “Keswick Theology: A Survey and Analysis of the Doctrine of Sanctification in the Early Keswick Movement” (PDF). Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal. 13.
  • Olson, Roger E. (1999). The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830815050.
  • Olson, Roger E. (2009). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  • Olson, Roger E. (2015). “Review of Oliver Crisp’s “Deviant Calvinism” Part Three”. My evangelical, Arminian theological musings. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
  • Peterson, Robert A.; Williams, Michael D. (2004). Why I am not an Arminian. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-3248-3.
  • Phillips, Robin (2014). “Why I Stopped Being a Calvinist (Part 5): A Deformed Christology”. Ancient Faith Blog. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
  • Pinson, J. Matthew (2022). 40 Questions about Arminianism. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
  • Puchniak, Robert (2008). “Pelagius: Kierkegaard’s use of Pelagius and Pelagianism”. In Stewart, Jon Bartley (ed.). Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-6391-1.
  • Robinson, Geoffrey D. (2022). Saved by Grace through Faith or Saved by Decree?. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
  • Salter, Roger (2018). “The Martyrs’ Stake: The Ensign of Reformational Anglicanism”. VirtueOnline. Retrieved 23 June 2019.
  • Sammons, Peter (2020). Reprobation: from Augustine to the Synod of Dort: The Historical Development of the Reformed Doctrine of Reprobation. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Schaff, Philip (1893). St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Vol. 5. Edimburgh: T&T Clark.
  • Schaff, Philip (1997). History of the Christian Church. Vol. 3. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
  • Sproul, R. C. (2002). Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  • Sproul, R. C. (2009). The Mystery of the Holy Spirit. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications.
  • Sproul, R. C. (2021). “No Shortcuts to Growth”. Ligonier Ministries.
  • Straton, Timothy A. (2020). Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
  • Talbott, Thomas (1999). The Inescapable Love of God. Parkland, Fla: Universal Publishers. ISBN 1-58112-831-2.
  • Tomline, George (1818). Elements of Christian theology. Vol. 2. London: Luke Hansard & sons.
  • Ware, Bruce A. (2004). God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. ISBN 9781581344431. OCLC 56334001.
  • Westminster Assembly (1946) [1646]. S. W., Carruthers (ed.). The Confession of Faith of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. London: Presbyterian Church of England.
  • Wiley, H. Orton (1941). Christian theology. Vol. 2. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press.
  • Woolford, Tom (10 March 2017). “Article 10 — Of Free-Will”. Church Society. Retrieved 12 March 2025.
  • Monergism – Contains articles explaining and defending Calvinistic monergism.