Bounds on Grace in the Fathers...

Is the Theological Seminar today at 3:30 in the IWU CM building, Room 122.  "Grace in the Early Church" is his topic, I believe.

An Interview with Chris Bounds 2: Total Depravity

Ken Schenck: I understand that there are different interpretations of Wesley on his view of total depravity? How does Randy Maddox's understanding differ from Ken Collins'?

Chris Bounds: “There are as many interpretations as there are readers.” While this is not completely true of Wesley, there certainly are many different interpretative lenses (sometimes irreconcilable) through which Wesley is understood and explained. As such, there are definable “schools of understanding” of Wesley.

1. For example, Wesley is seen principally through a Reformed or Calvinist lens by George Croft Cell, through Lutheran Pietism by Franz Hildebrandt, through Puritanism by Gordon Rupp, and through the Eastern Church Fathers by Randy Maddox. Also, Wesley has been (re) interpreted through more contemporary lenses, such as the liberationist perspectives of Theodore Jennings and the process theology of John Cobb.

Specifically, in regard to Randy Maddox and Ken Collins, their differences in working with Wesley are rooted in two areas. First, Ken Collins locates Wesley’s theology in the Western theological tradition of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Pietism – the Roman Catholic/Protestant tradition. Maddox seeks to understand Wesley more in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, particularly in the Eastern Church Fathers.

2. Second, Collins is a historical theologian and Randy Maddox is a systematic theologian. As a result, Collins is more committed to Wesley and Wesley’s particular theological thought than Maddox. Collins is more committed to Wesley’s theological understanding and views. He is reluctant to deviate from his understanding of Wesley.

Maddox is more committed to Wesley’s general theological methodology and goals. He is more willing to “think outside of the box.” He is more willing to allow for Wesley to be wrong or to speculate what Wesley might have discarded from/or incorporated into his theology had he had other theological/doctrinal resources to draw upon. Foremost for Wesley, according to Maddox, is building a theology that makes humanity truly responsible for actions and decisions and cooperating with God in the work of salvation.

3. These general differences can be seen in their respective treatments of Wesley’s doctrine of “total depravity.” Both Collins and Maddox agree on what Wesley’s teaching is on the creation of humanity, the Fall of humanity and the “natural state” of humanity as “totally depraved.” They agree on what Wesley’s doctrinal teaching is on these three interrelated doctrines of humanity. Also, they agree that Wesley’s teaching is rooted in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition of the Anglican Church.

However, Maddox is far more speculative and open to the possibilities of what Wesley might have developed theologically if he had other sources (particularly Eastern Orthodox teachings) available to him. For example, Maddox in Responsible Grace speculates that Wesley might have embraced open theism to resolve the tension of foreknowledge and determinism and Maddox appears to approve of this direction.

More specifically, Maddox recognizes that Wesley follows the Western tradition in painting Adam and Eve as fully mature in the Garden before their Fall. The image and likeness of God in them was perfect. They had perfected reasoning, understanding and judgment. This is the reason why their disobedience is seen as so offensive and why the consequences of the Fall are seen as so “total” and devastating for all of humanity. Adam and Eve were fully aware of what they were doing in their act of disobedience.

However, in the Eastern tradition Adam and Eve are not seen as fully mature. The image and likeness of God was not fully formed in them. They were made to grow fully into the image and likeness of God through the exercise of their free will. They were immature. While their disobedience has devastating consequences for all, the disobedience is seen as being done by “children” and not fully informed, fully mature human beings, thus not as serious or devastating as the Western tradition. Maddox explicitly speculates that if Wesley would have had the Eastern teaching on Adam and Eve, he would, most probably, have moved in this Eastern direction.

While Maddox speculates here, he does not do this explicitly in regard to “total depravity.” However, Maddox’s speculative work on what Wesley might have done with the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, leads me to believe that he is open to the possibility that Wesley might have been open to recasting “total depravity,” if more Eastern theology had been available to him.

Ken Collins, on the other hand would not. Collins from his solidly Reformed perspective of Wesley, strongly maintains the Western Reformed teaching on these issues. I would assume that he would not be open to recasting or re-visioning these doctrines as Wesleyans.

As such, there are no major differences between Maddox’s and Collins’ interpretations of Wesley’s teaching on “total depravity.” However, one appears more apt to believe that Wesley would have been open to re-vision the issues of the Fall, original sin, and “total depravity” from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Ken Schenck: Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to let us know a little of what is going on in the study and use of Wesley in theology.

Randy Maddox will actually be on campus here at IWU this Spring. It's too bad we couldn't have twisted Ken Collins' arm as well to get him here for a knock down, drag out... :-)

An Interview with Chris Bounds 1: Total Depravity

I thought I would ask Dr. Chris Bounds of IWU some questions on the doctrine of total depravity. Next week we will conclude the interview with his comparison of Randy Maddox and Ken Collins in their interpretations of John Wesley.
____________________
1. How would Calvin define "total depravity" and how close is Calvin’s understanding to Augustine’s?
I thought it would be helpful to quote Calvin himself in regard to his understanding of total depravity. Here is a key discussion and description of “total depravity” from Book II.2 of Institutes of the Christian Religion. As you will see he appropriates Augustine and principally follows Augustine’s teaching in articulating his own understanding.

I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to the hope of eternal salvation.

Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the kingdom of God, so that all things which pertain to the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he recover them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbour, the study of righteousness and holiness. All these, when restored to us by Christ, are to be regarded as adventitious and above nature.

If so, we infer that they were previously abolished. On the other hand, soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time, withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of natural gifts. For although there is still some residue of intelligence and judgement as well as will, we cannot call a mind sound and entire which is both weak and immersed in darkness. As to the will, its depravity is but too well known.

Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.

Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, Calvin, as well as Augustine, taught that holiness, righteousness, love of God and neighbor, and faith in God (Calvin uses the term from the Augustinian tradition “supranatural gifts” to describe these) were completely destroyed in humanity. Consequently, all human beings apart from divine grace are spiritually dead to God, thoroughly sinful, under divine condemnation, helpless to change themselves, ignorant of their present state, and are incapable of grasping their plight. This is total depravity.

Therefore if human beings are going to be redeemed, God is the One who must take the initiative. If human beings are to be awakened, convicted of their sin, repent, and exercise faith to be converted, then God must do the work, because humanity has no internal resources with which to move toward God and progress in the way of salvation.

However, it is important to point out that Calvin believed that some vestiges of the “image and likeness of God” remained in humanity after the Fall (Calvin uses the term from the Augustinian tradition “natural gifts” to describe these), allowing for some degree of rationality and understanding to continue to exist in human beings. Yet, none of these “vestiges” offer any resources in the work of salvation.

2. What is Wesley’s understanding of “total Depravity?”
According to John Wesley “total depravity” is the natural state of humanity. Humanity has no internal resources to offer or contribute to the work of salvation. Humanity in the natural state is without any awareness that there is a God, any awareness that humanity stands under divine condemnation, and any awareness that humanity even needs to be saved. Humanity is incapable of doing any good. Humanity is dead to God and dead in sin. As such, John Wesley is completely in the Reformed tradition, in agreement with John Calvin and Augustine. If human beings are going to be redeemed, then God is the one who must take the initiative.

However, at this point, Wesley begins to separate his theology from the Reformed Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, which, with its view of God as sovereign King and Judge, argues that God takes the initiative to redeem human beings by divine and irresistible election. God in His Wisdom chooses certain people to save. Because God is sovereign King, these people elected for redemption cannot help, but be saved; the rest are justly consigned to eternal punishment. On the other hand, Wesley, with his understanding of God as loving Father develops his doctrine of prevenient grace as the divine initial in the work of redemption.

3. How does the Eastern Orthodox view differ from the view of the Western church?
Basically, the Eastern view is not as pessimistic as the Western view in their understanding of the Fall and original sin. The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Fall and original sin differs in two primary ways from the Protestant approach of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.

First, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea of inherited guilt and penalty for original sin. The Western Protestant tradition has argued that all human beings stand condemned by God and subject to damnation by the reality of original sin. Even though we did not ask to be born in the state of original sin, even though this state of sin has been transmitted to us, we are responsible for it and are subject to God’s judgment of it.

The mere fact of having the “sin nature” places a person (even babies and children) under the penalty of eternal death/Hell. In contrast, the Eastern Church has taught that while the consequences of original sin are passed down to all of humanity (physical death, propensity or bent toward sinning, alienation from God, other human beings, and the created order, etc.), guilt or responsibility for original sin remains entirely with the first parents.

Thus, the offspring of Adam and Eve do not have to worry about being condemned by God for merely have the sin nature or being born in the state of sin. It is only when our will cooperates with the sin nature that we come under the judgment of God and incur guilt.

Second, the Eastern Church does not see the Fall as “totally” as the Western Protestant tradition. The major Protestant tradition understands the Fall and original sin as destroying the ability of humanity to choose the good, to turn toward God, to exercise true love, and to have faith. Human beings have no inherent powers to contribute to the work of salvation in their natural fallen state. They have no inherent power to say “yes” to God or cooperate with God. The human will is totally corrupted.

In contrast the Eastern tradition contends that the Fall and original sin weakened free will, but it did not destroy it. Therefore, human beings still posses the internal resources to cooperate with grace, the power to say “yes” or “no” to grace when grace is made available. Human beings have something to contribute to the work of salvation.
____________
Thanks to Dr. Bounds for giving us time you don't have