Dear friends, would you characterize Anglicanism, in its orthodox form as monergistic or synergistic in its soteriology? On the outset it appears to me to bemonergistic but not necessarily irresistible. Any thoughts? -Blessings!
Dear me! This forum has gotten really quiet. When I was last here this topic would have been bound to have started up a furious debate
I've come to a similar conclusion myself on the subject of regeneration. Just wondering LL, can you maybe elucidate what makes you think Confessional Anglicanism doesn't teach only irresistible grace? A straightforward reading of article 17 would seem to me to imply that all who God has predestined to Salvation will be saved.
I remember those days. In part taking part in them and getting burnt out on such vexing topics was what drew me away then. I don't remember how this issue settled last time, or what is usually meant by those terms anymore. For instance how can (in my understanding) the concept like monergism allow for a human will strong enough to resist it? Perhaps we should start with the definitions of these two terms, namely monergism and synergism. If I were to briefly offer what I think is my response, I'd say is that Anglicanism teaches a very strong idea of Divine sovereignty, omnipotence and grace, which are combined with an equally big emphasis on works and living out the Christian life. For that reason I would posit that its theology antedates terms like monergism and synergism that were created out of modern post-Reformation Scholasticism. Anglican theology would posit, with St. Augustine, that we should Pray as if it all depended on God, Act as if it all depended on you
I think you are conflating two inter-related yet distinct issues. Article 17 teaches the following: To our culturally trained ears, we often readily consider anything that smacks of predestination to be Calvinist, but that is not always the case. Luther also preached predestination, but he did not preach the double predestination later put forth by John Calvin. Rather, Luther, like the Anglican reformers, taught Predestination to Life. In fact, as I read the Article, it appears to chasten those who preach double predestination on two fronts. First, it points out that while predestination to life gives a believer much hope and consolation; the sentence of predestination to damnation will engender in a nonbeliever just the kind of despair and hopelessness the Devil can seize hold of to send him down an even darker path. Second, the Article states that its doctrine of predestination--predestination to life--is grounded in Holy Scripture. The implication is that double predestination, which I agree feels like the logical conclusion of the scripturally revealed truth that the elect are predestined to life, is nevertheless speculative; a bridge too far, since it is not "expressly declared to us in the word of God." Since Article 17 isn't Calvinist in its approach to predestination, I see nothing in the Article that requires me to believe the other Calvinist TULIP points. Irresistible grace, whereby the elect are compelled to accept the internal calling of the Holy Spirit, and the grace given thereby, is not an inevitable consequence of accepting the model of predestination offered in Article 17. Moreover, that grace may be resisted, is or at least appears to be supported by other portions of the articles. For example, grace is given through the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which Article 25 calls "effectual signs of grace" with the power to quicken, strengthen, and confirm Faith in Our Lord. However, the Article provides that such grace is not imparted automatically or irresistibly, but may only be imparted to them that receive the sacraments worthily, that is, with faith (Article 27), and what is more, with lively faith (Article 29). And yet, infants are baptized, even though they show no signs of doing so worthily, ie, in a faithful manner. Despite this, Article 27 declares the practice "most agreeable to the institution of Christ". There are many possible arguments for why this is. One is that grace is given sacramentally to the recipient as long as he does not possess an affirmative will to resist the grace. Absence of lively faith, as in an infant, is not necessarily damnable; contempt for the faith by one with capacity to believe and yet doesn't, however, is. Christ teaches "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). One who receives the grace of baptism and has the gift of faith is assured salvation. However, the one who actively disbelieves is in danger of hell, regardless of his baptism. He resists the effectual grace given to quicken faith, and in so doing, purchases for himself damnation. Also, Article 16 plainly tells us that even those who have truly received the gift of the Holy Spirit are capable of departing from His grace."After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin". We can depart. the article goes on to say that repentance will restore the departed's state of grace. But that doesn't really have bearing here; there is the capability of a departure from grace given. After all, my argument here isn't about the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which the idea that promises that the elect isn't be able to resist grace forever, but is about the irresistibility of grace at any point in time no matter how brief. Does this mean then that I think that grace is not irresistible? No it doesn't. I merely mean to show that it is not necessarily irresistible in the Articles. I will say though that I am skeptical. Nothing new is catholic. And I have a hard time believing that the doctrine of irresistible grace was lingering in shadows of Apostolic thought until John Calvin and his followers were able to adequately shine a light on it in the 1500s. Also, it seems rather offensive to one's reason to think of a "free gift" being something irresistibly given. It seems to turn the gift of God 's grace into a burden that one is not free to shed. That being said, I'm no expert on these things and I'm sure much wiser folks than I can shed more light on this. topic I am thankful that my salvation isn't conditioned upon my faith in the 5 Points or irresistible grace, but upon my faith in the Living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. -Blessings SK!
Monergism states that salvation is all the work of God. There is nothing in that idea that limits man's freedom to resist God's work and I don't see how absence of resistance can be considered a cooperative work on man's end (synergism) aiding in his salvation. If we get saved, it is all God's doing. If we are damned, it's all our fault.
Thank you for that. I suppose it really hinges on definitions. Everything rests on how we view or define monergism. I have seen it defined as God doing all the work period, in the world, from mono- (alone), and ergo- (working, effort, activity). Synergism would then be defined as the allowance for existence of divine and human work in the world.
Thanks for your detailed reply. It's true, we often think of predestination as between Calvinist and Arminian which is not always fair. I would disagree that the 39 articles give a different view of Predestination to Calvinism but so as not to get sidetracked I'll leave that for now ) although if you want to I'll be happy to give you my reasons). I want to draw your attention to this part: "Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God... to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling" "Those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind" would seem to indicate that some are chosen but not everyone universally. And then it follows: "[The elect] through Grace obey the calling" - this seems to be saying the same thing as the doctrine of irresistible grace. It doesn't say they might or might not obey the calling; it's definite. So if I was looking at Article 17 alone this is the conclusion I would come to. However you make some good points in the other articles. Article 16 does not seem to be talking about God's grace effectually converting the soul but rather confirming we can fall from God's grace after conversion which Calvinist theology would also say (otherwise we would never sin after regeneration) Your other references point out that the sacraments are effectual signs but only effectual for those who believe. I wonder if there is a hint of a Lutheran view of baptism here that infants may have faith? Perhaps I could sum up that I think Anglicanism teaches a monogerstic view of regeneration and confirms God's effectual calling of us as well as recognising we cooperate in our sanctification.
As you like it. I can see where one who is so inclined could draw conclusions and inferences from what is written in the articles. But the important distinction here is that one is not compelled to do so. I am not so inclined to make such leaps nor to require others to do so even if I were. The articles are only required to be taken in their "literal and grammatical sense", ie, within the four corners of the document. The words on the page do not require a Calvinist interpretation of Article 17. But more than that, the words on the page, specifically the words in Article 6, tell us that the Articles themselves and all things Anglican are restrained by Holy Scripture "so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith." The scriptures leave irresistible grace an open question at best. Which is again why I stated that belief is not necessary.
I should note that on no side of the divide would someone affirm that God chooses every human being, as that would be heterodox and entail Universalism. I have seen those in the modern day termed synergist affirm that God does not choose everyone. They would affirm that those whom God had foreknown, he had chosen. One of the central tenets of calvinist Tulip is "Irresisible Grace." They'd affirm that the elect can sin after regeneration, but not that that entails a fall from Grace, or the potency in the created human mind to resist God's omnipotent Grace (I've seen it stated in those emotive words, and it's usually presented in that emotionally charged language). Anglican doctrine however allows for the human mind to resist God's omnipotent Grace. We are called to God only insofar as we are foreknown, as St. Paul teacheth.
Nothing in the Articles precludes Universalism...nor was it declared heresy until the 5th ecumenical council. Since Anglicanism traditionally limits charges of heresy to beliefs held contrary to Holy Scripture and the first four councils (see 1559 Act of Supremacy), one can be a Universalist and not be a heretic as far as Anglican standards. If one really wishes to parse it out, only a particular form of apacostasis was declared heterodox, the one which said all--even the devil-- would eventually be saved. Not all Universalists hold with that school. In my opinion, the only way that most Calvinist doctrines are palatable is if they are viewed through Universalist lenses
That was the only meaning I attached to Universalism. This, the effectual salvation of all is the common/banal meaning understood and condemned in common Christian and Anglican discourse. There may be niche or nuanced meanings however..