'Synergia'. Both/and?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
The World Cup Final is pretty lack-lustre so here's a new thread.
'Synergia'.
Divine initiative and human response. Cooperation between the human and the divine.
Orthodoxy places a strong emphasis on this. Always acknowledging God's grace. Other Christian traditions don't place so much emphasis on this.
Are we 'monergists' or synergists?
What are the pros and cons of each?
Colours to the mast. I see synergism in the scriptures.
I read the scriptures through the lens of Holy Tradition.
'Synergia'.
Divine initiative and human response. Cooperation between the human and the divine.
Orthodoxy places a strong emphasis on this. Always acknowledging God's grace. Other Christian traditions don't place so much emphasis on this.
Are we 'monergists' or synergists?
What are the pros and cons of each?
Colours to the mast. I see synergism in the scriptures.
I read the scriptures through the lens of Holy Tradition.
Comments
And the Incarnation?
Just as Mary wasn't simply a 'receptacle' but a participant it follows, in the Orthodox understanding, that we aren't simply 'receptacles' either as, like her, we 'bear' Christ into our world.
I know monergism doesn't imply that we are robots or simply 'boxes' into which God pours his grace, but when I read the scriptures I see synergia.
It's there in the Incarnation. It's there in James. It's there in Paul.
It's there in the Old Testament and in the New. It's there in the Gospels.
I can't 'unsee' it.
What about the Incarnation?
But is it correct to conclude that trying therefore accomplishes nothing?
Or about us keeping the Law for a single hour let alone a whole day?
Besides the Incarnation isn't a tangent, if that's what you are saying.
It's a 'model' or paradigm I suggest.
None of us would be saved without it. Which is why I cite it. The Incarnation isn't a bolt on extra and I don't believe you think it is either.
It is completely germane to the monergist / synergist debate and to anything else we may wish to discuss theologically.
It's absolutely central to soteriology, ecclesiology, everything else-iology ...
Including the Gospel writers.
That's if we accept that Luther was monergist in all respects, which not all Lutherans appear to do.
Follow the Incarnation paradigm I've suggested and you'll see where I'm coming from. I'm not suggesting salvation by observing the works of the Law, even if it were possible for us to do that.
We share in the life of Christ and are conformed/transformed into his likeness by grace.
The mystery of godliness is great.
Spain both wanted to win and wanted to play good football.
Argentina wanted to win at all costs.
Synergy re the Incarnation?
Primarily the hypostatic union (Jesus is both fully divine and fully human) which creates a bridge between the Creator and the created, opening up the possibilities of a loving and co-operative relationship.
Mark me down as a synergist.
Obviously I don't believe there will be turn-stiles at the Pearly Gates with signs saying, 'Synergists' to the right, 'Monergists' to the left ...
I'm sure Luther and the Pope will have enjoyed a tankard or two of German beer by now with the Pope saying, 'Mmmm, not bad. It could almost make me appreciate your fart gags ...'
Martin would laugh, belch and give him a hearty slap on the back.
Eventually Tetzel would come over and say, 'Sorry I'm late, lads. It took a good while for all those Indulgences I sold to get me out of Purgatory...'
Then the Ecumenical Patriarch would say, 'Well, it took me long enough to reply to Melanchthon's letter but we've been having a good chin-wag over an ouzo.'
Priceless!!
RR XX
That's a big topic and I don't think I can do justice to it, but I can make a few observations.
The following link might be helpful - Reformed/Orthodox dialogue.
Both sides seem to have a nice line in hats:
https://orthodoxbridge.com/2015/02/09/what-do-orthodox-christians-believe-about-justification/
At various times of course, all our jigsaw puzzle pieces will slot neatly into place. In others we have to press a bit harder to make them fit. In still other places they won't slot together at all and we'd have to file down one edge or other to make them fit.
So, from an Orthodox perspective, sometimes Reformed views will fit snugly, at other times less so. Likewise with Lutheran perspectives and 'anabaptist' ones - which I'm using in broad terms to cover the tradition @Barnabas62 represents.
Viewed from the other side, as it were, certain Orthodox emphases will chime with Reformed, Lutheran, 'baptistic', Wesleyan, RC and other Christians, whilst others won't resonate at all.
I found the above link, from an Orthodox perspective, quite helpful but wouldn't say it was the last word on the matter. How could it be?
I agree. A Heavenly ecumenical post!
He means monergism and synergism
If you can bear to work through it!
Here is a link.
I mean that doesn't explain anything about what that means! To me "synergism" sounds like some annoying business-speak term found on LinkedIn, or what Synergy does on Jem & The Holograms.
Thank you.
Speaking generally, it would be really helpful on posts about obscure theological terms to have a basic definition of what they mean in the opening post - akin to posting an English translation alongside non-English words.
But then, I'm annoyingly and unapologetically 'both/and' so 'monergism sounds to me like it's a mutually exclusive position which comes down on one side or another when there is really no need to do so.
You are now entering Dichotomy District, prepare for single answers, as it were.
@chrisstiles - I did use the term 'synergia' as it's a term we tend to use in conversation in English-speaking Orthodoxy but yes, 'synergism.'
I'm not sure I've ever used the term 'monergia' - I'd say or type 'monergism.' Someone is going to tell me know that I have done so ...
What I do find odd - or frustrating rather - about monergist positions is that the people who apply or deploy them are more than happy to live with two things being true at one and the same time when considering other theological issues.
So monergists are entirely comfortable with the deity and humanity of Christ, for instance, but when it comes to things like the relationship between faith and works, say, they suddenly go all one-sided. I'm putting things simplistically of course.
I can understand it, of course, given the controversies within Western Christendom during the 1500s and 1600s. But if we take those out of the equation then the apparent contradictions and dichotomies begin to fade away.
So, for instance, the Apostle Paul was referring to 'works righteousness' according to the Torah and observance of Jewish codes and James was thinking in more general terms about moral behaviour. That makes it easier to reconcile the apparent discrepancies without having to tear one or t'other out of the New Testament.
Which may be an overly simple way of looking at it. But here I stand ...
Meanwhile, per Q 35: “Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness.”
As those two answers suggest, the Reformed would generally say monergism for both justification and sanctification. Some (most?) would certainly speak of our participation in sanctification, but would likely stop short of describing that participation as synergism. That reluctance would be rooted in concern for being clear that even our participation in sanctification isn’t possible absent “God’s free grace.”
We do participate in our own sanctification, and we are called to participate in our own sanctification. But because Reformed understanding holds that it’s only God’s grace that enables us to participate in our sanctification, the Reformed tradition has been reluctant to describe that participation in specifically synergistic terms. I think there is a concern that “synergism” may imply equal participation on the part of God and the one being sanctified.
Mary’s “yes” would be seen as voluntary participation, but participation that was only possible because of God’s grace. (The greeting of the angel was “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”)
Classic Reformed theology would look to what Jesus said in John 15: “I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.” The ability of the branches to grow and bear fruit is tied to being in Christ, and the grace that comes through Christ. Apart from Christ, all they can do is whither.
I’d say that’s very much a “both/and” position—it’s true both that we are called to participate in our own sanctification and that our participation is only possible because of God’s free grace.
Of course, some might say this is all unnecessarily picking at nits. And I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. But I would say that when considering questions like this, it always behooves us to consider the contexts in which the arguments arose. And it behooves us to consider the current contexts in which we are thinking through and applying (or misapplying) those old arguments.
When we do that, I wouldn’t necessarily say that the differences fade away, @Gamma Gamaliel. But perhaps they are seen as perspectives that, rather than dividing us or putting us in opposition to one another, enable all of us to see the big picture more fully.
My point is that the juridical and 'forensic' aspects only make sense if we approach them in the context of a paradigm where that matters.
It only matters, if I can be reductionist about it, in the context of Western understandings of these things that the Orthodox don't share.
So, concerns that God and human beings might be seen as 'equal partners' in a synergistic relationship don't apply as it wouldn't occur to us that they would.
None of us think that God and humanity are on an equal footing. It's a false dichotomy.
I might be over-egging things but that's partly what I mean what I say that these things 'fade away' or at least diminish in importance if we operate according to a different set of premises.
If we don't regard the atonement in such juridical terms it becomes less of an issue. I'm not saying there isn't juridical imagery in the NT. Of course there is. But from an Orthodox perspective those aspects aren't in the foreground or emphasised as much as they are within Western Christian traditions.
The monergist/synergist dichotomy becomes an issue due to 16th century debates within a particular strand of Christianity.
It's not so much of an issue to the Copts and 'Orientals' nor to the Eastern Orthodox because we don’t operate within a paradigm where there's as much of a clash.
We don't 'blame' the Reformers, we believe their protest came out of legitimate concerns that had arisen in late medieval post-Schism Western Christianity.
In some ways we don't think the Reformers went far enough.
Equally, in reverse, there will be controversies within Orthodoxy that don't make an awful lot of sense to either RCs or Protestants.
Why? Because RCs and Protestants might be coming at these things from a different direction to ourselves.
You know, if you're going to take this as an accusation, maybe I'd be better off not being on this thread. I have no desire to be in a combative situation right now, I've got too much going on in real life. Let me know your preference please, and I'll participate or not accordingly.
I worded my quoted response clumsily. I'm sure you aren't accusing me of anything and I take that back.
My point is that we are approaching the same scriptural texts from different paradigms. Hence we may understand them in different ways.
That doesn't imply bad faith on anyone's part and I apologise for my cack-handedness.
I 'get' that too.
Although it's from a different paradigm from the one I now inhabit, I think the principle of the following can certainly apply in any setting:
'Pray like a Calvinist, work like an Arminian.'
Or, pray as if it all depends on God, work as though it all depends on you.
Trouble is, I don’t do either very well.
'But he gives more grace.'
Could I ask if there are any other monergists on the thread? Particularly, any that are monergist on the issue of santification?
Me, although personally I feel it's quite hard to discuss it in isolation as it's the end point of a lot of other things, so I can understand not wanting to get combative about it, even life situation permitting.
The reason I said "What about the Incarnation" is because your point was not clear to me. Simply referencing the Incarnation doesn't immediately lead me to Mary's "Let it be done to me" at all. I'm hip-deep in the Incarnation and its issues at the moment in real life (Christmas publishing!) and I'm sitting here going "Incarnation. Incarnation???? and trying to discern which aspect in particular you meant... Jesus' two natures, maybe? How they relate to each other? The debate over how many wills he has, and how they interrelate, and how that relates to the Trinity? What the Incarnation means to me (or other believers)? etc. etc. etc.
I'm going to have the same problem with justification, if you don't spell out what bit of that huge, huge doctrine you're interested in. Conversion? The work of Christ? The last judgement? and so forth and so on... Because Lutherans of all people can go on for months on the subject, if you don't stop us. Please stop us, I write too many walls of text as it is...
You don't have to convince me of its importance, I agree with you on that absolutely. But the precise intersection you're interested in--well, it would help if you pointed it out in the future.
Anyway, I can see the thread has moved on, so no need to reply if you don't want to. I'm going to try to read and play catch-up now.
As a Lutheran, I'm monergistic. If I say "we" after this, I'm talking about people who hold the same view. There are no doubt synergistic Lutherans, but I don't come into much contact with them.
As far as our general view of humanity, of course we do stuff, and of course God has opinions of what we do. Some of it may be good, some bad, and most (or all) mixed, depending on the standards you're using to judge.
As far as justification goes, we hold that this is wholly to God's credit. He is the one who saves. Christ specifically is the one member of the Trinity we think of most often in connection with justification, since he became incarnate, lived, suffered, died, and rose again for our salvation. Yet the Trinity as a whole never separates him/themselves, and so we get the Father and the Spirit participating in our justification--notably the Father gives us to his Son (John 6:36-40) and the Spirit creates faith in Christ within us (see 1 Cor 12:3).
What do human beings contribute to their salvation (justification)? Sin. We contribute sin. Otherwise known as stubbornness, unbelief, and a generally fucked-up life and attitude. God graciously deals with all of that, and remakes us, and that's all to his credit, not ours.
Now, sanctification. When I use the word, I'm referring to the ongoing process whereby human beings become more and more Christ-like. This is the Holy Spirit's work, though naturally it shows itself through human attitudes and actions. But the attitudes and actions are causing the change. The Spirit is driving it (though here again, the other members of the Trinity are also involved). And any attempt by human beings to, ah, mimic this change through their own hard work without the Spirit is bound to end in tears. The sin nature* in human beings is just too strong.
* Sin nature== to Lutherans, this means the basic, in-born twist in human nature that makes us go wrong in pretty much every area of life--actions, thoughts, attitudes, you name it. God didn't create us this way, it's an inheritance from our first ancestors who rebelled against God and managed to fuck up the human race pretty comprehensively. That's not to say that humans never do good things--at least, in the usual meaning of "good," the human meaning (don't get started on the divine bit, okay?). They do. Everybody does, I think. But it takes far more effort than it ought to, and the minute we relax just a little we're back in the mess of sin. And nobody can keep it up for very long.
So that's why we're monergistic. We think God gets credit (and rightly so) for both salvation and sanctification. None of this is going to happen unless God himself does it.
Certainly both things, salvation and sanctification, are going to show up in human thoughts, words, and actions. But that's a result of God's work, not a cause.
And this doesn't mean that we are robots. My son is studying Greek right now. He is taking tests, attending study groups, working with others, etc. etc. etc. All of those actions are real actions and choices he is making. But none of them would be possible if I didn't drive him to grad school first. My action enables his actions. Similarly, God's action enables all the human actions that follow. And so we give him the glory.
But it’s not something I’d likely ever get wound up about.
I did promise to outline Orthodox views on justification, but haven't done that yet.
I did supply a link to a Reformed/Orthodox site where these sort of issues are discussed.
It's late and I wouldn't post anything particularly coherent if I addressed these issues now. I made a hash of things when I posted late last night.
Suffice for now to make the observation that because the Orthodox emphasise a 'human' dimension synergistically in these things, it doesn't mean we are somehow diminishing or down-grading God's action or initiative.
We don't think that way.
It's not that we don't understand the issues 'Western' theology and soteriology seeks to address, it's more a case that we don't come at these things from the same direction. Our view of original sin is different for a start.
We don't see how God 'loses out' as it were in terms of credit, glory, praise or anything else if we accept a synergistic collaboration between the human and divine. Why should it?
'All things come from you and of your own do we give you.'
I see a curious connection between synergy and the perseverance of the saints, In my 50 year journey of faith I am convinced that I’ve experienced divine encouragement to persevere despite my numerous mistakes.
It reminds me of the classic Victorian approach to parenting; the withholding of approval. The idea was to make children strive for approval, which would make them more obedient, more malleable. Many people rebel, others become frightened of their own shadows. A 20th century author whose same I forget left the church when she was sixteen, believing its modus vivendi was to foster guilt. It’s both a lousy form of leading and a lousy form of parenting and so I don’t believe God’s parenting of His human children is like that. Correction is with love, encouragement includes a delight in our progress.
You’re probably right about bad teaching but I sometimes wonder whether at its heart that is caused by a corruption of understanding about the heart of God as our divine parent.
A synergistic appreciation of the dynamic in our relationship with God makes sanctification a journey of co-operation with a good God who loves us.
Anyway, that’s the way it seems to me.
Spot on. 'withholding of approval' was definitely a feature of my 'Dr Spock' upbringing. But Our Dear Lord is not like that.
I've been reflecting on my slow and gradual move from a more monergist position to a more synergistic one.
One of the reasons it took - and is taking - so long is, I believe because it is so hard-wired into our 'Western' Christian mindset that there is a kind of subconscious fear that we are abandoning the Gospel in some way or 'robbing God' of the glory due his name if we even accept the slightest smidgeon of synergy.
It has taken me decades to move away from penal substitutionary views of the atonement, for instance - and yes, I am fully aware that isn't universally held among Protestant Christians, but it was the dominant paradigm in the circles I moved in, although balanced out to some extent by a more 'Christus Victor' approach.
I will outline something about the Orthodox view of justification later, once I've had a chance to get my thoughts together more clearly.
I can understand the point @Lamb Chopped has made about new converts in Lutheran and possibly Protestant settings more generally, but again now find it a rather 'alien' way to approach this issue.
It sets up a dichotomy that doesn't exist from a Patristic perspective, if I understand that correctly, unless we emphasise certain Patristic voices over and against others.
If I may use sacramental confession as an example from my own experience. I don’t like making my confession. Our priest says he doesn't like hearing them either. Imagine having to listen to all the shitty things we all get up to.
What he does do, is encourage us to believe that the Lord does forgive sins and that anyone who comes to him he will in no wise cast out.
It's not up to us, but down to God whose 'property is to forgive' as the old Anglican prayer book has it.
What we have to do is continually turn, like the Prodigal Son. The Father rushes out to meet us.
It makes little sense to me these days to try and 'parse' the whole thing to determine how much depended on the Prodigal's initiative by leaving the swine-pen and how much was God's (who knows everything anyway).
Was it 70% God and 30% the sinner's repentance? Or 60/40? 50/50? 99.9%?
No, those aren't the right questions to ask.
I can understand the monergist perspective and the synergistic one that @Barnabas62 articulates but from within an Orthodox paradigm I don’t see why we have to set these things in opposition to each other.
Grace and forgiveness aren't in any way diminished if we take a synergist view. God isn't any less God. Salvation is of the Lord.
Glory be to God in all things.
Why try to fillet everything out in 16th century terms?
We have a very good friend who is now with the Quakers. A very sensitive person whose life was blighted by this picture. Cognitive behavioural therapy helped her to stop the tapes playing in her mind but she retains the scars.
Maybe I was very fortunate? It never made any sense to me as an understanding of God so I was never injured by it. I had an inner conviction that God is not like that.
I well remember reading Solzhenitsyn in the 1970s. In particular this quote.
Our synergistic relationship with God enables us, with God’s help, encouragement and correction, to build on that bridgehead, wherever in our hearts it may be found. He sees that we are worth it. An emphasis on our continuing unworthiness can be very destructive. It can kill hope. As I wrote earlier, it can produce people who are frightened of their own shadow.
The fact that there are Reformed, Lutheran and other monergists out there who aren't introspectively crippled with guilt shows - to me at least - that solipsistic guilt isn't baked into their mindsets and theological systems.
@Lamb Chopped reminds us that Lutheranism emphasises freedom and I take her word for it. Orthodoxy does too but comes at it from a different direction. It wouldn't do for me to challenge Lamb Chopped's assertion - 'But Luther wrote On the Bondage of Human Will - na na na NAH Nah!' - particularly when i) I've not read it and ii) Lamb Chopped has previously outlined that Luther doesn't say what he's caricatured as saying in it.
Likewise with Calvin. It's often said that he's less 'Calvinistic' - in the caricatured sense - than sone of his later followers.
I'll let wiser minds than mine deal with all of that.
I'd also suggest to @Barnabas62 that whilst we are both coming these things from a synergistic direction, our respective understandings will still differ to some extent.
What matters most, however, are those areas where all of us overlap, which doesn't elide the differences but does acknowledge common ground and acknowledges the life of Christ among us all.
A question then. How does Orthodoxy understand the wrath of God?
Within Protestantism there has always been the understanding that God hates sin because of what it does to the humankind he loves. Oversimplified in the assertion that we ourselves in our response should love the sinner and hate the sin.
But of course there is something in that. It’s a lot better than teaching His Holiness as akin to the wrath of sn angry potentate (or an overcontrolling earthly parent).
I’ve read somewhere here that we can experience God’s holiness as either an illuminating light or a vengeful wrath, depending on where we are in our relationship with Him. The presence of God is heaven to some, hell to others. I’ve a feeling that is an Orthodox view. It’s certainly one I can relate to.
But it does leave me with a question. Can people be scared and therefore corrected into the light? That doesn’t seem inevitable. I suppose some can but I’ve met fat too many who have been scared into a deeper darkness.
It doesn’t seem much like correction with love.
Apologies to those who are more well-versed in theology than I am if I cut corners.
From an Orthodox perspective, salvation was always seen as an all-encompassing thing affecting all aspects of life. Christians believed in Christ, were baptised and were nurtured in their faith and salvation through the Church.
From our point of view justifiable (ha, see what I did there?) arose in Western Christianity over a prevailing understanding that salvation depended on human effort and merit rather than the mercy and grace of God.
Hence the Reformers emphasis on Romans 5 and their development of the slogan sola fides - justification by faith alone.
Orthodoxy has never bought into the 'solas', although we understand their development as rallying banners if you like for the Reformers.
The Orthodox Christian East then had to respond to what it saw as a 'new' development and teaching and one that didn't arise within its own paradigm and understanding. Those baptise into Christ were called both to believe in him and to do good works. The Reformation emphasis, at a bald level, appeared to veer towards an either/or rather than a both/and position. I'm simplifying things dreadfully here, but you can see the drift.
And yes the Reformed position is that the faith which saves is 'never alone.' I get that.
Like the Reformed we take a covenantal view of these things - which isn't to say we are identical in that respect but that there is congruence.
Justification - the process of being or becoming righteous - by faith in God is to bought into a covenant relationship with the Almighty. In Israel salvation came by faith revealed in the Law. For Christians salvation comes through faith in Christ who fulfils the Law.
We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us and who, together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.
For us, justification entails a covenant relationship with God and gradual 'immersion' as it were into the divine life - rather than a form of legal acquittal before God.
It is centred on union with Christ (Romans 6:1-6) - we are united with him in his death through baptism and our old selves 'crucified' with him. We shall share the 'likeness of his resurrection'.
Hallelujah!
I'm not saying that this emphasis isn't there in other Christian traditions. Far from it. But for us this is the 'foreground' issue rather than juridical concerns as appears to be the case in some Western confessions.
Orthodoxy emphasises that it is first God's mercy - not our faith - that saves. God initiates our salvation. For us, grace is grace, we don't parse whether it's 'prevenient grace' or this, that or the other category of grace. It is grace.
Also - and again in common with other Christian traditions - we don't see faith as a 'one off' or static thing but something which is continuous and dynamic. True faith is not simply a decision but a way of life.
You may hear Orthodox say that there are three aspects:
1) We are saved, through being joined with Christ through baptism.
2) I am being saved through participation in the sacramental life of the Church.
3) I will be saved by the mercy of God at the Last Judgement.
None of these preclude other aspects such as the efficacy or otherwise of 'good works' in other contexts, secular or religious or whether God saves people who aren't baptised or who don't have the same view of the sacraments or the Church or whatever else.
Justification by faith poses no problem for the Orthodox, but the 'alone' part causes difficulties. We don't believe that scripture teaches that and find some Protestant attempts to reconcile apparent contradictions between Romans and the Epistle of James as somewhat unnecessary and bewildering. Yes, I know it's not that simple, but it is to us - we don't see a contradiction as we see both writers as dealing with different things - the Torah on the one hand and what we might call moral action on the other.
Through God's mercy we are justified by faith and empowered by God for good works or works of righteousness. These works don't earn our salvation but bring glory to Almighty God and hopefully benefit to others.
That's not an exhaustive account but I hope it helps indicate where we are coming from and why we might end up 'talking past' each other when it comes to these issues.
Apologies, I cross-posted and didn't see this before I posted on the Orthodox view of justification.
Very briefly, yes, your observation about our 'experiencing God's holiness as either an illuminating light or a vengeful wrath' would pretty much accord with most Orthodox Christian's understanding of these things - although we might baulk at the term 'vengeful'.
We don't see it in 'vengeful' terms. It's not 'emotional revenge' in human terms but rather divine love experienced by a sin-hardened soul. Such a soul is not going to experience the light of God's presence in a warm and conforting way but 'as a consuming fire.'
Orthodoxy doesn't dogmatise an awful lot beyond the Nicene/Chalcedonian Creeds so there isn't one definitive view on Hell as it were. The key thing to understand though, is that we don't see God's wrath in 'human' terms. I'm sure plenty of 'Western' Christians don't either.
On the issue as to whether people can be 'scared' into the light through fear of Hellfire and eternal torment - well, that certainly seems to have been a means adopted in times past - lurid medieval Hell-mouths appear in frescoes in both Western and Eastern iconography.
And Jonathan Edwards's notorious sermon Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God might be taken as a paradigm example of this. People were said to have been seen clinging to the pillars of the church building as if the ground were opening up beneath them.
I'm sure this accounts for the way people apparently fell over in 'swoons' or 'fits' during the preaching of Whitfield and Wesley.
The Orthodox don't go in for 'hell-fire preaching' although some of St John Chrysostom's sermons were pretty direct. Our funeral liturgies also pull no punches.
But we don't tend to set out to frighten people into the Kingdom, for the sort of reasons you've identified and outlined.
At the Anaphora the priest says, 'Let us stand aright; let us stand with fear; let us attend that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace.'
And when he lifts the chalice he says, 'With fear of God, and faith and love, draw near.'
Yes,there is 'fear of God' but also 'faith and love.'
Hope that helps.
At the risk of sounding facetious, I'd imagine that 'synergism' has only become defined or 'codified' as it were, because monergism emerged as an alternative at some point.
I would say this, of course, but I doubt that the early Fathers would have thought in those terms. It wouldn't have occurred to them to make those kind of distinctions, at least until people started taking some Augustinian emphases a bit further, as it were ...
When did monergism first emerge? We'd say it wasn't there from Day One.
But then, that's how theology works. The Creeds came about as people were wrestling with competing understandings of Christology and so on.
The Reformation came about as people wrestled with issues that emerged in late medieval Western Christianity - drawing on ideas and concerns that had been percolating for some time before that of course. None of these things happen in a vacuum or overnight.
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic there is an Orthodox view that if we take the 16th century controversies out of the equation we'd all be a lot closer to one another.
All we'd have to do then is settle the 'filioque' controversy, the role of the Papacy and ...
Orthodoxy rejects Pelagianism as heretical but without adopting 'Augustinian' thought-forms to do so. We'd reject Pelagian teaching on the grounds of its apparent rejection of 'ancestral sin' and the idea that human free will alone is necessary for salvation.
I know there have been attempts - among Anabaptists and others - to rehabilitate Pelagius and whilst it's probably fair to say that the Christian East wasn't quite as tough on his teachings as many in the West, Orthodoxy still stops short of giving it a free pass.
As an aside, and as an obvious point, perhaps, I'm struck how each of us inevitably approach these things through the framework of our particular traditions. I once met a lovely Presbyterian minister from Northern Ireland at an ecumenical conference. He was delighted to hear an Orthodox speaker stress the need for divine grace and state clearly that we do not save ourselves.
I can understand his delight but it was clear as we discussed the issue that he assumed, to a certain extent, that we were approaching these things from a similar direction to his own Christian tradition. We shared the same conclusions of course - that we don't save ourselves by our own efforts - but we get there by different routes.
If we were all to abandon any distinction between monergism and synergism on the grounds that this is now an outmoded concept and no longer applicable, I wonder what that would look like?