How Do We Get There From Here?

There is a common, basic core in most spiritual beliefs. There is "God" and there is "us" and there is "a gap". Common. Most religions recognize that "the gap" is our failure to meet "God's" standards and we need to work really, really hard at doing just that. Be good and you'll be okay. Be bad and ... well, we know that won't end well. That's "God", "us", and "the gap". A few religions make the gap out to be in us alone. That is, we're not in some violation of God or some such. We're just not who we ought to be. Meditate, divest yourself of worldly stuff, that sort of thing, and you can elevate yourself to the point of "God". But it's still "God", "us", and "the gap". And then there are those who think that the "us" are too far gone to be of any help in crossing "the gap" and it takes a divine, one-sided effort to cross that gap.

There are theological terms for these three positions in Christianity. They are Pelagianism, synergism, and monergism. Pelagianism was taught by (get this) Pelagius (Who would have thought?) back in the 2nd-3rd century. He opposed Augustine who claimed that perfection was impossible for humans (Original Sin and all that). "Not so," Pelagius assured his listeners. "If you work hard enough and drum up enough emotional response, you can 'arrive'." "Not so," Augustine warned his listeners. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Silly Augustine, taking the Bible literally and all. While Augustine argued that Natural Man was incapable of being good (you know, like Paul taught), Pelagius taught that your free will was sufficient to correct your ways and make you a good person. Pelagianism isn't particularly popular today among genuine Christians. Oh, there are a few. It was the teaching, for instance, of the famous Charles Finney. Mormons are also sold on the idea. But not genuine Christians.

We're left, then, with the other two possibilities: Synergism and monergism. Note, first, the similarity in the words -- "ergism". The suffix is based on "erg", a word of Greek origin that we use today to reference energy (See it in there? "Energy"). The question these two seek to answer is "If we do not contain sufficient energy to bridge the gap between us and God (which the Pelagians deny), where does that energy come from?" The difference, then, between the two energy sources is in the prefixes. "Syn" means "with", and "mono" means "one". "Synergy", in fact, is a fairly common term today denoting the concept of combined energy. It is the joining of potential from multiple sources that produces a more powerful output than one alone could have produced. Monergism, obviously, would be the output of one power source. Setting aside Pelagianism for the heresy it has already been declared since the early days of Christendom, we're left with two possibilities. Either we combine our power with God's power to bridge the gap between God and us, or God's power alone does it for us. These are the only options.

As it turns out, the most popular view today is the former, synergism. Here's how it works. God has expended a lot of effort to save us. His efforts, however, fall short. Just short. I mean, almost there. But whether God lacks the power or simply is unwilling to use it, it doesn't quite get there. He requires one thing from us. In order to actually accomplish our salvation, He needs for us to agree. If we don't agree, He can't save us. ("Can't" either in the sense of "incapable" or "unable due to His own choices".) In the final analysis, then, Human Free Will is the key that either accesses or denies the salvation that God has enabled. (Now, those who favor synergism avoid the "God is not Sovereign" charge here by saying that God has sovereignly decided to limit His salvation to those who choose to accept it, so they still affirm the sovereignty of God, albeit not the Sovereignty of God.) Since "synergism" is the combining of abilities or power such that the outcome is more than either individual source could/would provide, this is classic "synergism". That is, God alone does not finish salvation and Man alone cannot attain salvation, but together their combined efforts accomplish salvation. Synergism.

Monergism operates a bit differently. In this approach, Man is, well, not an option. That is, he is powerless, ineffectual, without anything to offer. His "good" is not good enough. His spiritual condition is "dead". His only natural inclinations are always only to evil. Natural Man, in this view, doesn't have any "erg" to offer. Thus, the initial crossing of the gap between God and Man occurs purely by God's power alone. All by Himself, God changes the spiritual condition from "dead" to "live", modifies the natural inclinations to allow for something other than evil, and endows the person with faith. Monergism -- one power source providing all that is required.

Well, there they are. You may detect some underlying stuff in there. "Hey, isn't that Calvinism?" Or perhaps, "Yeah, that's Arminian thinking." And there are very likely those who will even protest, "Hey, wait! I thought Finney was a good guy!" One or two might even suggest I've raised a false dilemma here. "Oh, no, there are certainly more options than that!" I don't think so, but feel free to think up some. In the meantime, you'll have to figure out what you believe. Does the Bible teach that we are the final arbiters of our own salvation, or does it depend "not on human will or effort, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16)? Maybe you think it's not "not of works lest any man should boast" like the Pelagians. Maybe you agree that God has limited His sovereignty and enabled spiritually "dead" Man to make the final decision. Or maybe you have some new, creative concept that goes around all three possibilities. I've laid them out as fairly as I know how. You decide.