What Makes an Arminian?

There are those who argue "I'm a Calvinist" and then clarify, "Well, I'm a four-point" or "three-point" or some such. There are others who claim, "I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian", thinking that they agree with a few of the points of Calvinism and a few of the points of Arminianism carefully crafted and modified, of course, to match something that is not quite either. Now, mind you, I'm not talking about people like me. I argue that I'm not a Calvinist because I'm wary of being tied to a man. My beliefs come from my understanding of Scripture, not from something John Calvin wrote. No, I'm talking about those who prefer not side with either view.

What is it that makes an Arminian (or a Calvinist)? What is the difference that would define the two? I think this is a key question. If we can figure out a basic difference, perhaps it would clear up or, at least, fundamentally change the discussion. So let me answer the question with what I believe to be the primary, singular difference between the two. In my estimation, where you fall on this one question will determine whether or not you are an Arminian or a Calvinist. That is, based on this question, everything else will fall in one direction or another.

Here's the question: What is the source of your regeneration? In theological terms, there are two views. One is synergism. I'm sure you've all heard the term (which is why I started with that one) and I'm sure most of you start with that premise. What premise? In its purest form, the word is constructed of two Greek terms. The first is sun (which Latin converts to "syn"). It means "with". The second, then, is the root word ("with" is a descriptive term). The root Greek word is ergon. Some of you may know that in English an erg is the unit of energy. In the same way, ergon is a reference to "work". Thus, "synergism" in its purest form means "working with". Of course, in English it has a more rounded sense. It means, "the working together of two (or more) things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects." In theology, synergism references regeneration as a cooperative endeavor between a person and the Holy Ghost. "Working with". See? So, the idea is this: We are regenerated (born again) by the cooperative effect of our faith that enables the Holy Spirit to then regenerate us. Synergism.

The second term is far less prevalent, but together with "synergism" and a little thought I think we can figure it out. The term is "monergism". Note the same root -- ergon. So we're talking about "work". The prefix, then, describes the difference. And I don't think I need to explain to too many what "mono" means. It's simply "one". Monergism is, to the best of my knowledge, only used in the arena of theology. Thus, it is defined this way -- the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Synergism is the majority belief of the day. God and I work together to get me born again. He can't (or won't) do it without me. Before He acts to regenerate me spiritually, I have to choose Christ and come in faith. Having done my part (Billy Graham liked to describe God's work as 99.9% of the way and ours as .1%), God is now enabled to finish the task. Together, then, we've accomplished what neither God nor I could have accomplished alone -- my spiritual rebirth. Synergism. There are others (apparently growing in numbers) who are horrified at the thought. They say this. "How can someone who is dead in sin, hostile to God, blinded by the god of this world, and incapable of understanding the things of God be expected to make that first step of choosing Christ and coming in faith?" They further object, "If it is our faith that enables the Holy Spirit to regenerate us, isn't there something there, even if it is very small (.1%), of which to boast?" These, based on a host of Scriptures, will subscribe instead to monergism. (I don't mean to imply that those who subscribe to synergism do so without Scripture. I'm merely saying that both are biblically sourced.) Their view is that God first regenerates whom He pleases and gifts them with faith and they, then, choose Christ and come in faith.

All other considerations work their way down from this single question. Did you enable God to regenerate you, or did God do it without your assistance? Set aside all the wrangling over whether or not the Holy Spirit can be resisted or what the extent and intent of the Atonement was. Disagree all you want over minor points. The only real question that differentiates a Calvinist or an Arminian is this single question. Did you begin by your own faith, or did you begin by God's divine first act? (I'm trying very hard not to poison the well. I may have to ask the question later in comments.) Your answer there will determine whether or not you are one or the other. After that it's mere details.