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... :-)
Showing posts with label depravity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label depravity. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
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
____________________
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
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Total Depravity
I consider the doctrine of total depravity to be a near consensus of Christendom. I say near consensus because I'm not sure that the Eastern Church formulates human sinfulness quite the same way as the Western church has under the influence of Augustine (Bounds, are you out there?). Similarly, I'm not sure that the Roman Catholic tradition has always understood total depravity quite as extremely as most Protestant traditions have. Thus I don't think Thomas Aquinas thought that our minds were completely fallen.
But from the standpoint of both Wesleyan, Reformed, and Lutheran theology, humanity is totally depraved and can do no good in its own power. Contrary to popular belief, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition is not Pelagian and does not believe that humans have free will independent of God's empowerment. The difference between the two traditions is the process of moving from total depravity to salvation. For the Calvinist, it is an all or nothing proposition, like a normal light switch. Either God turns the light on, and you move toward holiness and you are saved, or He doesn't. [I might add that I am a little uncomfortable with the way Protestants both Wesleyan and Reformed alike talk about holiness as something like righteous living, but that's another series]
By contrast, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition thinks of the movement from depravity to holiness more on the model of a dimmer switch that can be on in varying degrees. At some point in every person's life, God turns the light up just enough for the person to indicate whether they would like more light or not. This is not a point of the person's choosing! If the person does not respond appropriately when God turns up the light, the person may not ever get another chance. There goes putting off repentance until your death bed!
On the other hand, if a person thus empowered by God signals a desire for further light, God will turn the light up further unto salvation. In theological terms, Wesley referred to the "just enough" dimmer light as God's preventing or as we say, "prevenient grace." It can lead in turn to "saving" or "justifying grace."
It is now my task to process these theological discussions in the light of Paul's own categories. I believe that much of our theological language is mythical, if you would, not thereby meaning that it is false, only meaning that we tend to process theological truths by way of metaphorical narratives. My dimmer switch "story" is a good example. I believe I am accurately representing a truth but I am doing it in a non-literal way.
A more palatable way of putting it is to say that all language is ultimately "incarnational" language. So Paul uses certain language in relation to human sinfulness. Augustine used a different set of images. We should not mistake either for the exact reality. But they both point toward the reality. I will try not mistake my own images for reality either, but I do want to try to get into Paul's head on the relevant issues here and then compare them with the head of Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, etc.
The idea of a sinful nature is, as I understand it, Augustinian. It is not Pauline, and I regularly complain in class about the NIV's translation of the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature." Here are some thoughts on Paul's use of the word flesh:
1. It is related to embodiment. After all, why else would Paul use the word for skin?
2. It tends to have a negative connotation. The word body, soma, does not tend to have a negative connotation. Even though these two words overlap in meaning at a certain point, "body" tends to have a somewhat more neutral sense, while "flesh" tends to have a negative one.
3. Flesh is often related to sin.
"I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh" Rom. 7:18.
"The law is spiritual, but I am made of flesh [sarkinos], enslaved under Sin" Rom. 7:14
Indeed, we might infer from these images that flesh is that part of me that is enslaved to sin.
4. It is possible not to be "in the flesh" in this life. In other words, one can get "out of the flesh" while still on earth.
"Those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you" Rom. 8:8-9.
We see therefore that Paul can use the word "flesh" with varying degrees of literality, ranging from flesh as literal skin to flesh as a metaphor for a state of susceptibility to the power of sin.
Although not all agree [e.g., Dunn], perhaps the majority of Pauline scholars now recognize that Paul is not talking about some current and ongoing personal struggle with sin in Romans 7. The context argues overwhelmingly against such a reading. We have mentioned above both the fact that Paul speaks in Romans 7:14 of someone "enslaved to sin" because they are "made of flesh." Yet in the very next chapter he denies that a person "in the flesh" can please God. These comments would contradict each other if both were meant to refer to Paul's current state.
The dissonance of the "current struggle of Paul" interpretation only increases the more we look at the context. Romans 6:17 is particularly telling:
But thanks be to God because you were slaves of sin but you obeyed from the heart the type of teaching which you have received.
Here the timing of enslavement to sin is prior to coming to faith. For Paul to say that he is currently enslaved to sin would thus imply that he was not even a person of faith yet. Indeed, the wording of this statement is very similar to Paul's resolution at the end of Romans 7:
Who will rescue me from the body of this death? But thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord (7:24-25a).
We should thus read Romans 7:13-15 as a dramatic enactment of the process of going from being a slave to sin to being free from sin. We should have read it this way all along, given Paul's preface to this sequence of thought in 7:5-6:
For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which came through the law used to work in our members bearing fruit to death, but now we have been released from the law and have died in relation to that by which we were held so that we might serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
So when we now come to the Augustinian imagery of a sinful nature, we recognize a certain skew from Paul's own imagery. The idea of a nature--particularly for us who now process human behavior in terms of DNA--raises questions about physical things inside of me, genetics, brain structure, and such. Before Christians thought about such things, we still found those in the Wesleyan tradition arguing over whether a person's sinful nature might be eradicated or perhaps could only be supressed.
We can see that these discussions are all somewhat wrong headed. Paul does not say that we all have a sinful nature. What he implies is that Sin holds power over this creation. So in Romans 8:20 Paul says that "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but on account of the One who subjected it in hope." Our flesh is a part of this creation, and its default state in this realm is enslavement to the power of Sin.
But it is interesting to note what this state of affairs did not mean in Paul's own imagery. For example, notice how Paul argues in Romans 7:16-17 in relation to the person without the Spirit:
If I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. But now it is no longer I doing it but sin that dwells in me.
In Paul's formulation, the person wants to do good and wants to keep the law, but is unable to do so because of a foreign power over them. And Paul is not talking about a believer here. He is talking about a Jew who might want to keep the heart of the Jewish law, say the prohibition on coveting.
There is no sense here of depravity of the "I," although we might overlay Paul's own thoughts with our sense of will. Only then can we say that this person has a "bent" to sinning. But for Paul, this person's inclination is not to sin. The person is simply not empowered to do so.
What we find here is a quasi-dualistic sense of a human person. I am not totally depraved in my essential being but I may actually be inclined toward the good in my ego, in my "inner person" (7:22)!
Similarly, while Romans 5:12 speaks of sin and death entering the world through Adam, it says nothing of us acquiring a sin nature. In some way because of Adam, all now sin. But Paul leaves it to us to figure out the mechanism for why that happens. Reading between the lines, the answer that sticks closest to Paul's own categories is one that sees the power of Sin coming on the world and over human flesh because of Adam's sin. At the eschaton we will no longer have such flesh, because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50).
Against this backdrop, we can see the Augustinian reading of Paul as an overreading. Sure, Paul does quote the psalm, "There is none righteous, not even one" (Rom. 3:10 quoting Ps. 14:1-3). To do so, he takes the psalm somewhat out of context because it was originally referring to fools who say there is no God! But note that Paul does not say that "there is no one with any good in them whatsoever" or "there is no one who has ever done one good thing." At the very few points where Paul's language might sound a little like this, we should understand Paul to be speaking somewhat hyperbolically, given his default mode of talking about human action.
As with other issues later theologians are to blame for this body of argumentative death. Paul talks about humans as if they have free will and as if they can desire good. He does not have a worked out theology of how this can be. He does not fit our apparent free will with the idea that we are elect--and to do so is not commendable when it ends up skewing one or the other pole of his thinking! He does not have some dark sense of total depravity. All are sinners, yes. All need God's grace to be saved, yes. No human is worthy of God, yes.
But he apparently does not think of humans as unable to want the good, and he can say of himself before he came to Christ that "according to the righteousness that is in the law, I was blameless" (Phil. 3:6). He doesn't cover his theological tale here by referencing prevenient grace. He is, to put it simply, talking like a Jew. Works do not justify, yes. But Paul talks as if unbelievers can do some good even though they do not have the Spirit.
So, I'll concede to Thomas Schreiner that the idea of prevenient grace is more Wesley than Paul. But in terms of which theology produces a "theological product" that looks more like the NT, Wesley wins over Calvin. Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace accounts for good done by a person who is not regenerate. Calvin will largely deny it. Wesley's doctrine of sanctification implies that a person can live above sin after the Spirit. Calvin is far more pessimistic and Luther doesn't even want to talk about it (shh, it's God's secret, so Gerhard Forde).
But from the standpoint of both Wesleyan, Reformed, and Lutheran theology, humanity is totally depraved and can do no good in its own power. Contrary to popular belief, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition is not Pelagian and does not believe that humans have free will independent of God's empowerment. The difference between the two traditions is the process of moving from total depravity to salvation. For the Calvinist, it is an all or nothing proposition, like a normal light switch. Either God turns the light on, and you move toward holiness and you are saved, or He doesn't. [I might add that I am a little uncomfortable with the way Protestants both Wesleyan and Reformed alike talk about holiness as something like righteous living, but that's another series]
By contrast, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition thinks of the movement from depravity to holiness more on the model of a dimmer switch that can be on in varying degrees. At some point in every person's life, God turns the light up just enough for the person to indicate whether they would like more light or not. This is not a point of the person's choosing! If the person does not respond appropriately when God turns up the light, the person may not ever get another chance. There goes putting off repentance until your death bed!
On the other hand, if a person thus empowered by God signals a desire for further light, God will turn the light up further unto salvation. In theological terms, Wesley referred to the "just enough" dimmer light as God's preventing or as we say, "prevenient grace." It can lead in turn to "saving" or "justifying grace."
It is now my task to process these theological discussions in the light of Paul's own categories. I believe that much of our theological language is mythical, if you would, not thereby meaning that it is false, only meaning that we tend to process theological truths by way of metaphorical narratives. My dimmer switch "story" is a good example. I believe I am accurately representing a truth but I am doing it in a non-literal way.
A more palatable way of putting it is to say that all language is ultimately "incarnational" language. So Paul uses certain language in relation to human sinfulness. Augustine used a different set of images. We should not mistake either for the exact reality. But they both point toward the reality. I will try not mistake my own images for reality either, but I do want to try to get into Paul's head on the relevant issues here and then compare them with the head of Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, etc.
The idea of a sinful nature is, as I understand it, Augustinian. It is not Pauline, and I regularly complain in class about the NIV's translation of the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature." Here are some thoughts on Paul's use of the word flesh:
1. It is related to embodiment. After all, why else would Paul use the word for skin?
2. It tends to have a negative connotation. The word body, soma, does not tend to have a negative connotation. Even though these two words overlap in meaning at a certain point, "body" tends to have a somewhat more neutral sense, while "flesh" tends to have a negative one.
3. Flesh is often related to sin.
"I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh" Rom. 7:18.
"The law is spiritual, but I am made of flesh [sarkinos], enslaved under Sin" Rom. 7:14
Indeed, we might infer from these images that flesh is that part of me that is enslaved to sin.
4. It is possible not to be "in the flesh" in this life. In other words, one can get "out of the flesh" while still on earth.
"Those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you" Rom. 8:8-9.
We see therefore that Paul can use the word "flesh" with varying degrees of literality, ranging from flesh as literal skin to flesh as a metaphor for a state of susceptibility to the power of sin.
Although not all agree [e.g., Dunn], perhaps the majority of Pauline scholars now recognize that Paul is not talking about some current and ongoing personal struggle with sin in Romans 7. The context argues overwhelmingly against such a reading. We have mentioned above both the fact that Paul speaks in Romans 7:14 of someone "enslaved to sin" because they are "made of flesh." Yet in the very next chapter he denies that a person "in the flesh" can please God. These comments would contradict each other if both were meant to refer to Paul's current state.
The dissonance of the "current struggle of Paul" interpretation only increases the more we look at the context. Romans 6:17 is particularly telling:
But thanks be to God because you were slaves of sin but you obeyed from the heart the type of teaching which you have received.
Here the timing of enslavement to sin is prior to coming to faith. For Paul to say that he is currently enslaved to sin would thus imply that he was not even a person of faith yet. Indeed, the wording of this statement is very similar to Paul's resolution at the end of Romans 7:
Who will rescue me from the body of this death? But thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord (7:24-25a).
We should thus read Romans 7:13-15 as a dramatic enactment of the process of going from being a slave to sin to being free from sin. We should have read it this way all along, given Paul's preface to this sequence of thought in 7:5-6:
For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which came through the law used to work in our members bearing fruit to death, but now we have been released from the law and have died in relation to that by which we were held so that we might serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
So when we now come to the Augustinian imagery of a sinful nature, we recognize a certain skew from Paul's own imagery. The idea of a nature--particularly for us who now process human behavior in terms of DNA--raises questions about physical things inside of me, genetics, brain structure, and such. Before Christians thought about such things, we still found those in the Wesleyan tradition arguing over whether a person's sinful nature might be eradicated or perhaps could only be supressed.
We can see that these discussions are all somewhat wrong headed. Paul does not say that we all have a sinful nature. What he implies is that Sin holds power over this creation. So in Romans 8:20 Paul says that "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but on account of the One who subjected it in hope." Our flesh is a part of this creation, and its default state in this realm is enslavement to the power of Sin.
But it is interesting to note what this state of affairs did not mean in Paul's own imagery. For example, notice how Paul argues in Romans 7:16-17 in relation to the person without the Spirit:
If I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. But now it is no longer I doing it but sin that dwells in me.
In Paul's formulation, the person wants to do good and wants to keep the law, but is unable to do so because of a foreign power over them. And Paul is not talking about a believer here. He is talking about a Jew who might want to keep the heart of the Jewish law, say the prohibition on coveting.
There is no sense here of depravity of the "I," although we might overlay Paul's own thoughts with our sense of will. Only then can we say that this person has a "bent" to sinning. But for Paul, this person's inclination is not to sin. The person is simply not empowered to do so.
What we find here is a quasi-dualistic sense of a human person. I am not totally depraved in my essential being but I may actually be inclined toward the good in my ego, in my "inner person" (7:22)!
Similarly, while Romans 5:12 speaks of sin and death entering the world through Adam, it says nothing of us acquiring a sin nature. In some way because of Adam, all now sin. But Paul leaves it to us to figure out the mechanism for why that happens. Reading between the lines, the answer that sticks closest to Paul's own categories is one that sees the power of Sin coming on the world and over human flesh because of Adam's sin. At the eschaton we will no longer have such flesh, because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50).
Against this backdrop, we can see the Augustinian reading of Paul as an overreading. Sure, Paul does quote the psalm, "There is none righteous, not even one" (Rom. 3:10 quoting Ps. 14:1-3). To do so, he takes the psalm somewhat out of context because it was originally referring to fools who say there is no God! But note that Paul does not say that "there is no one with any good in them whatsoever" or "there is no one who has ever done one good thing." At the very few points where Paul's language might sound a little like this, we should understand Paul to be speaking somewhat hyperbolically, given his default mode of talking about human action.
As with other issues later theologians are to blame for this body of argumentative death. Paul talks about humans as if they have free will and as if they can desire good. He does not have a worked out theology of how this can be. He does not fit our apparent free will with the idea that we are elect--and to do so is not commendable when it ends up skewing one or the other pole of his thinking! He does not have some dark sense of total depravity. All are sinners, yes. All need God's grace to be saved, yes. No human is worthy of God, yes.
But he apparently does not think of humans as unable to want the good, and he can say of himself before he came to Christ that "according to the righteousness that is in the law, I was blameless" (Phil. 3:6). He doesn't cover his theological tale here by referencing prevenient grace. He is, to put it simply, talking like a Jew. Works do not justify, yes. But Paul talks as if unbelievers can do some good even though they do not have the Spirit.
So, I'll concede to Thomas Schreiner that the idea of prevenient grace is more Wesley than Paul. But in terms of which theology produces a "theological product" that looks more like the NT, Wesley wins over Calvin. Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace accounts for good done by a person who is not regenerate. Calvin will largely deny it. Wesley's doctrine of sanctification implies that a person can live above sin after the Spirit. Calvin is far more pessimistic and Luther doesn't even want to talk about it (shh, it's God's secret, so Gerhard Forde).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
