How do Augustine’s answer to the Problem of Evil, his robust understanding of original sin, and a monergistic understanding of God’s sovereignty demonstrate his theological growth from being a synergist to a monergist?
We haven’t finished Augustine yet, apparently. Last week we discussed his sermon on 1 John; this week we are talking about how he switches sides in a major theological debate. Looking at the blog question, it is necessary to define quite a few terms. Let’s start with that:
- Problem of evil- where did evil come from, since God couldn’t have created it?
- Original sin- the idea that all humans are sinful by default, due to Adam and Eve’s sin.
- Monergist and Synergist- will get to those in a moment.
According to Mr. Bryant, Augustine gave Christians one of the best defenses against the problem of evil. See if you can get an idea from the following picture:
Augustine said there was no such thing as “sin.” Hence the Matrix reference. Instead, sin is simply the absence of God’s goodness. Just as there is no such thing as cold, only the absence of heat. This could seem to solve it, with God not creating sin, but simply when a creature (man or supernatural) decides to sin, God is not responsible for making the sin. That is the sinner’s making. This explanation keeps God’s innocence on the problem of evil.
Now for Original Sin. For me, I’ve believed in this concept as long as I can remember. But many, many people do not. These people are not necessarily Christians (although some probably are.) These are the people who believe that they are “good enough” to get to heaven, and that they have at least 51% of their deeds in the “good” column. Back in the day of Augustine, this heresy (yet another!) was under the name of Pelagianism. It was started by none other than Pelagius, and his theory said that it was possible to live a morally good life apart from God. It follows from this that they believed that there was no original sin. Even though this view is desirable, it is not biblical. (Romans 3:23, For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.) The church fathers of that time weren’t as concerned with Original Sin as Augustine, a firm believer of it, thought they should. Augustine pushed Original Sin to the top of the list of things to be dealt with.
Let’s go back to those two difficult-to-define terms. Both “Monergism” and “Synergism ” refer to the process of salvation. I’ll put those in bullet-point also, to make them easier to read:
- Monergism- the belief that regeneration (the spiritual transformation in a person that brings the individual from being spiritually dead to become a spiritually alive human being) is entirely the work of the Lord. This belief also states that until regeneration, there is no free will. The problem with this idea is that the individual has no part whatsoever in the process of salvation and no free will prior to salvation, they can’t really be blamed for their actions. With no free will, they don’t decide what they do. I don’t think this lack of moral responsibility fits with the Bible, so I think at least some of this idea is incorrect.
- Synergism- the belief that regeneration is initiated by God through grace, but the individual cooperates. This belief deals with the problem that Monergism faces, but it has its own problem: the individual’s cooperation makes God not able to give salvation by Himself. He needs the person to cooperate to proceed. This raises serious questions about the Sovereignty of God.
Originally, Augustine leaned toward the Synergists. However, as his faith grew, he switched to the Monergist side. I cannot pick a side. It’s like the election; neither side is ideal, but one side seems to be a little better than the other. I feel more comfortable with Monergism because the problem they have is with man, while Synergism’s problem is with the nature of God. I don’t know if that is a legitimate reason, but that is my reasoning. I can’t say which is right, (both of them need something more,) but I think that Monergism is slightly less problematic. But that’s just my thoughts; I have by no means a solid opinion about either. Your thoughts?
Church History 