The Actors in Salvation
An age-old debate framed by Augustine of Hippo and John Cassian
"Monergism: the theological doctrine that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit" [1]
The dispute concerning the actors in salvation is perennial. Augustine vs. Pelagius; Luther vs. Erasmus; the Reformed vs. the Remonstrants; Whitefield vs. Wesley… While all orthodox Christians must recognize outright Pelagianism for the heresy that it is, the inclinations that gave birth to that erroneous system provide incessant temptation. After all, Disney and popular culture is saturated with Pelagian-esque language: "Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps! Get in the boat and row! Master your own destiny! I'm the captain of my own soul!" I suspect that this debate is far from being resolved; because it speaks to the root of how we understand our own existence and the God we worship. This article will serve to give an overview of the initial exchange between an orthodox semi-Pelagian (John Cassian) and the quintessential monergist of the post-apostolic era (Augustine of Hippo).
Augustine's Monergist View
Augustine held to a monergistic view of the actors in salvation. Namely, he saw that God must necessarily move first, and then human wills and actions follow.
Some writers apparently made a distinction between the first little inclinations to believe and final faith. Augustine, in order to avoid any sort of misunderstanding, attributes even the smallest inkling of faith to God's efficient working. Moreover, he believes that this first act of belief would amount to a faithful act and would therefore require God to pay a wage for that righteousness.[2] However, if faith is the act of God done in man, then man can only give thanks. This point is clearly seen in many passages where Paul and other writers give thanks to God for their initial belief in response to the Gospel.[3] Therefore, if this first bit of belief can be attributed to God, then one must concede that the first actor in the application of redemption of believers is God.
No passage of Scripture was more important to Augustine in this doctrine than 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What do you have that you did not receive?" If Christians attribute even the tiniest portion of their salvation to an act of their will or strength, that would negate the nature of grace.[4] Exhortations about not boasting except in God alone, or God destroying all basis for boasting would be null and void. Instead, a Christian would have a means to say that they are better than a non-believer. If the believer provides the causal impetus to their salvation in a way that anyone else could have, then they have necessarily performed better than everyone else.[5] The ramifications for this produces the very thing that synergism claims to avoid. Assuming that one's act of belief is of oneself would mean that the most hardened sinners must necessarily be the least savable ones.
Augustine also has a rich definition of what the faculty of the will is. For Augustine, the human will is radically unable to choose God, and it is "not able not to sin". God must both call us to enable our initial willing and he must sustain us to persevere in the Christian life.[6] The first temporal act of God in our salvation is to soften our hearts to effectively and not merely possibly receive His Gospel.[7] If we acknowledge that sin has corrupted our hearts such that a miraculous "circumcision of the heart" must take place in order for us to do any spiritual good, then such an effectual calling becomes essentially necessary.
The final cause of salvation for Augustine must fall back on the predestinating act of God. The idea of a "foreseen faith" definition of predestination was not foreign to Augustine's time, and while modern reformed commentators usually challenge this argument lexically, Augustine's limited grasp of Greek forces a more logical but nonetheless profound approach. Returning to God's promises to Abraham, Augustine turns the discussion to what Christians must ultimately trust in. No one would contend that we trust in God's ability to foresee our faith - a trust in oneself. Instead, the cornerstone of saving faith has always been trust in God's ability to keep His promise - a Godward trust.[8] We see this nowhere more clearly than anytime we pray that God would bring someone to belief. We ask because we believe that he can do it regardless of their obstinance.[9] Commenting on Ephesians 1:5, Augustine underscores that God's predestinating act is in no way a response to goodness in man, but it is the underlying cause of all goodness found in any man.[10]
Some writers apparently made a distinction between the first little inclinations to believe and final faith. Augustine, in order to avoid any sort of misunderstanding, attributes even the smallest inkling of faith to God's efficient working. Moreover, he believes that this first act of belief would amount to a faithful act and would therefore require God to pay a wage for that righteousness.[2] However, if faith is the act of God done in man, then man can only give thanks. This point is clearly seen in many passages where Paul and other writers give thanks to God for their initial belief in response to the Gospel.[3] Therefore, if this first bit of belief can be attributed to God, then one must concede that the first actor in the application of redemption of believers is God.
No passage of Scripture was more important to Augustine in this doctrine than 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What do you have that you did not receive?" If Christians attribute even the tiniest portion of their salvation to an act of their will or strength, that would negate the nature of grace.[4] Exhortations about not boasting except in God alone, or God destroying all basis for boasting would be null and void. Instead, a Christian would have a means to say that they are better than a non-believer. If the believer provides the causal impetus to their salvation in a way that anyone else could have, then they have necessarily performed better than everyone else.[5] The ramifications for this produces the very thing that synergism claims to avoid. Assuming that one's act of belief is of oneself would mean that the most hardened sinners must necessarily be the least savable ones.
Augustine also has a rich definition of what the faculty of the will is. For Augustine, the human will is radically unable to choose God, and it is "not able not to sin". God must both call us to enable our initial willing and he must sustain us to persevere in the Christian life.[6] The first temporal act of God in our salvation is to soften our hearts to effectively and not merely possibly receive His Gospel.[7] If we acknowledge that sin has corrupted our hearts such that a miraculous "circumcision of the heart" must take place in order for us to do any spiritual good, then such an effectual calling becomes essentially necessary.
The final cause of salvation for Augustine must fall back on the predestinating act of God. The idea of a "foreseen faith" definition of predestination was not foreign to Augustine's time, and while modern reformed commentators usually challenge this argument lexically, Augustine's limited grasp of Greek forces a more logical but nonetheless profound approach. Returning to God's promises to Abraham, Augustine turns the discussion to what Christians must ultimately trust in. No one would contend that we trust in God's ability to foresee our faith - a trust in oneself. Instead, the cornerstone of saving faith has always been trust in God's ability to keep His promise - a Godward trust.[8] We see this nowhere more clearly than anytime we pray that God would bring someone to belief. We ask because we believe that he can do it regardless of their obstinance.[9] Commenting on Ephesians 1:5, Augustine underscores that God's predestinating act is in no way a response to goodness in man, but it is the underlying cause of all goodness found in any man.[10]
Cassian's Synergist View
"Synergism: The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects." [11]
Contra Pelagius, Cassian held that there are necessarily two actors in salvation; he even goes so far as to affirm the primacy of God's grace.[12] God and human actors must synergistically pursue man's salvation. Man's will, however, is weakened and thoroughly reliant upon God to "meet guide and strengthen it."[13] The extent to which man cooperates with God's working is his own choice, but, at times, our wills carry the day and other times, God must more radically assist our wills to do what is right.[14]
God's determination toward men in salvation, according to Cassian, is that he desires all to be saved, but many do not cooperate with His will and are therefore lost.[15] Furthermore, he holds that God's assistance to men's wills is indiscriminate and prevenient when he writes, "the God of all must be held to work in all, so as to incite, protect, and strengthen, but not to take away the freedom of the will which He Himself has once given."[16]
The brunt of Cassian's argument centers around the countless passages of Scripture where man is invited to obedience. According to his reasoning, if God has invited mankind to do something, man must be able to do those things with the aid of His prevenient grace.[17] God invited Israel to obey but they turned away; God is like a faithful groom seeking an adulterous wife who continues to abide in sin; even Jesus cannot work where there is unbelief and so on and so forth. Consequently, by Cassian's reasoning, the principle issue in redemptive history is that man chose not to believe and obey, but God was always seeking.
God's determination toward men in salvation, according to Cassian, is that he desires all to be saved, but many do not cooperate with His will and are therefore lost.[15] Furthermore, he holds that God's assistance to men's wills is indiscriminate and prevenient when he writes, "the God of all must be held to work in all, so as to incite, protect, and strengthen, but not to take away the freedom of the will which He Himself has once given."[16]
The brunt of Cassian's argument centers around the countless passages of Scripture where man is invited to obedience. According to his reasoning, if God has invited mankind to do something, man must be able to do those things with the aid of His prevenient grace.[17] God invited Israel to obey but they turned away; God is like a faithful groom seeking an adulterous wife who continues to abide in sin; even Jesus cannot work where there is unbelief and so on and so forth. Consequently, by Cassian's reasoning, the principle issue in redemptive history is that man chose not to believe and obey, but God was always seeking.
Augustinian Response to Cassian
Cassian's understanding of the divine and human actors in the salvation of sinners does not make many obvious exegetical errors. However, the most foundational error propounded by Cassian and the semi-Pelagians who followed him is the assumption of a libertarian free will. Protesting that God cannot demand something of us that we are incapable of only makes sense if we assume that our will possesses the power of so-called "contrary choice" (i.e. a divorce of actual inclination to an action from the action itself). If one assumes this libertarian framework when reading Cassian's work, it will make perfect logical sense. However, if one permits Scripture itself to teach a doctrine of the human will, a radically different understanding emerges. After the Fall, humanity fell into sin and human nature - in its entirety - became subject to sin. Mankind's every inclination is subject to sin and man is only able to do what we most desire- namely, sin. No one can do anything other than what they most desire at any moment. (Genesis 8:21) Consequently, in order for us to obey the gospel by placing our faith in Christ, God must renew our will and grant us faith. In numerous instances, Cassian assumes that either God is working alongside the believer, or only one party is working. However, the idea of secondary causes, or God working through something else, is never explored.
The second error is a failure to understand the complex nature of the love of God. God has a unique and committed love to His elect, the bride of Christ. Cassian's framework for understanding God's love, however, makes Him dependent upon creation when he writes, "[God's love] could not be more fitly described by any comparison than the case of a man inflamed with most ardent love for a woman, who is consumed by a more burning passion for her, the more he sees that he is slighted and despised by her."[18] This kind of love negates God's aseity, impassibility, and holiness. God's initiatory love must ultimately fall back on His own electing predestination since the only righteous reason to love sinful man must begin within God himself. Any reference to the life of Hosea should be seen as a relentlessly persistent and redemptive love rather than needy love that is fueled by slights.
The chief exegetical error propounded by Cassian and his theological descendants is a failure to make a distinction between "all without distinction" and "all without exception". Numerous passages, especially in the New Testament, make reference to God's desire that all be saved or come to repentance. In context, these passages are in reference to all types of people and not all people. If every "all" in the New Testament included every human being in the world, then the Bible would teach universal salvation. Just consider 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." If every "all" in the New Testament means all humanity for all time, then Hell would be empty. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every interpreter of the Bible to determine what group "all" represents in any particular passage.
The second error is a failure to understand the complex nature of the love of God. God has a unique and committed love to His elect, the bride of Christ. Cassian's framework for understanding God's love, however, makes Him dependent upon creation when he writes, "[God's love] could not be more fitly described by any comparison than the case of a man inflamed with most ardent love for a woman, who is consumed by a more burning passion for her, the more he sees that he is slighted and despised by her."[18] This kind of love negates God's aseity, impassibility, and holiness. God's initiatory love must ultimately fall back on His own electing predestination since the only righteous reason to love sinful man must begin within God himself. Any reference to the life of Hosea should be seen as a relentlessly persistent and redemptive love rather than needy love that is fueled by slights.
The chief exegetical error propounded by Cassian and his theological descendants is a failure to make a distinction between "all without distinction" and "all without exception". Numerous passages, especially in the New Testament, make reference to God's desire that all be saved or come to repentance. In context, these passages are in reference to all types of people and not all people. If every "all" in the New Testament included every human being in the world, then the Bible would teach universal salvation. Just consider 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." If every "all" in the New Testament means all humanity for all time, then Hell would be empty. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every interpreter of the Bible to determine what group "all" represents in any particular passage.
A Final Appeal
Recent research from the Barna Group has shown that Americans have departed from a biblical doctrine of God.[19] This is the root issue of both Pelagius and his more-or-less orthodox theological descendants. Every person wants to write their soteriology before they have written their theology proper; that's a natural fallen temptation - to define salvation on our own terms. However, what does it mean to be God? My dear semi-Pelagian, Amyraldian and Molinist brethren, even if you are convinced of your soteriology, I pray that you have not only considered theodicy but also divine aseity. No one puts this friction between theology proper and synergism more succinctly than Petrus van Mastricht:
"The will of God is the very essence of God, and the essence of God is entirely independent, as most all of our adversaries admit [...], while on the contrary, a conditioned will depends upon a condition. Thus, by this hypothesis, God will be dependent, that is, not God. [...] Nor would he be most wise, because he wills in earnest what, at least according to the semi-Pelagians, he foresees will never exist."[20]
Petrus van Mastricht
1630-1706
Van Mastricht was commenting on Isaiah 46:10 which reads, "I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: my plan will take place, and I will do all my will." From this passage we see that God's knowledge of all things proceeds from his decree of all things. God does not perceive future realities and thereby attain knowledge. No, God has decreed everything that comes to pass and thereby, in and of Himself, knows all things; this includes his decree of who will trust in Jesus Christ and be saved. Paul has this in mind when he writes, "He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" (Ephesians 1:5; emphasis mine). Notice again that God's will - his decree - is determinative, not God's perception of some event outside of Himself. I believe that van Mastricht exposes the consequence of denying this truth when he writes,
"So then, [a synergist/semi-Pelagian soteriology] is nothing but (1) calling the self-determined to account, (2) subjecting the independent to creatures, (3) stripping the most absolute of his sovereignty, (4) correcting the most wise. And what sort of person, finally, will do all these sorts of things with impunity?"[21]
Petrus van Mastricht
1630-1706
Bibliography
[1] Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monergism
[2]Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. In vol. 2 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Page 4. Publicly accessible here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm
[3] Ibid, 39.
[4] Ibid, 8.
[5] Ibid, 10.
[6] Ibid, 7.
[7] Ibid, 13.
[8] Ibid, 19.
[9] Ibid, 22.
[10] Ibid, 36.
[11] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/synergy
[12] John Cassian. On the Protection of God. Conference XIII. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1060-1092. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Page 16. Publicly accessible here: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211/npnf211.iv.v.iv.i.html
[13] Ibid, 11.
[14] Ibid, 12.
[15] Ibid, 7.
[16] Ibid, 18.
[17] Ibid, 9.
[18] Ibid, 8.
[19] https://disrn.com/news/americans-continue-to-redefine-and-reject-biblical-view-of-god-barna-survey?fbclid=IwAR1V6m_b4jZT9eecxjsUYaBOn7CP_7f0MvXCxSjQdKKQ4yvwJNQuWF3dddc
[20] Petrus van Mastricht. Theoretical-Practical Theology, Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books. 2018. Page 310. He is commenting on how semi-Pelagians discuss that God wills for all individuals to be saved.
[21] Ibid, 320.
[2]Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. In vol. 2 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Page 4. Publicly accessible here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm
[3] Ibid, 39.
[4] Ibid, 8.
[5] Ibid, 10.
[6] Ibid, 7.
[7] Ibid, 13.
[8] Ibid, 19.
[9] Ibid, 22.
[10] Ibid, 36.
[11] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/synergy
[12] John Cassian. On the Protection of God. Conference XIII. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1060-1092. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Page 16. Publicly accessible here: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211/npnf211.iv.v.iv.i.html
[13] Ibid, 11.
[14] Ibid, 12.
[15] Ibid, 7.
[16] Ibid, 18.
[17] Ibid, 9.
[18] Ibid, 8.
[19] https://disrn.com/news/americans-continue-to-redefine-and-reject-biblical-view-of-god-barna-survey?fbclid=IwAR1V6m_b4jZT9eecxjsUYaBOn7CP_7f0MvXCxSjQdKKQ4yvwJNQuWF3dddc
[20] Petrus van Mastricht. Theoretical-Practical Theology, Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books. 2018. Page 310. He is commenting on how semi-Pelagians discuss that God wills for all individuals to be saved.
[21] Ibid, 320.
