I've spent much of the past 4 weeks reading, thinking, praying, and talking about the 5 points of Calvinist theology, frequently referred to with the acronym "TULIP." This is because I go to Reformed Theological Seminary, and they subscribe to the Reformed/Calvinist theological tradition. I must confess that, prior to starting at RTS, I had never really taken an in-depth look at the tenets, biblical basis, and implications of Calvinist theology. So I'm digging into these things for the first time, and I'm finding it really interesting. For the next few posts, I'm going to discuss my personal reactions and thoughts about each of the 5 points. Today I'll start with "T" which stands for "Total Depravity."
As I understand it so far, the gist of the doctrine of total depravity is that mankind as a whole, and thus each individual person, is incapable of righteousness before God. We are capable only of committing sin, because we are under the curse of Adam's original sin, and thus our will is bound. In other words we are non posse non peccare, or not able not to sin. Even if the way of salvation were clearly laid out before us, and all we had to do was to choose to walk in it, we would not choose to do so, because we can not choose to do so.
This is admittedly a brief, crude articulation of this doctrine, and volumes have been written by men and women more learned than me, trying to expound what this doctrine does and does not mean. But for now, I'll move on to my own interaction with this doctrine.
If I try to consider this on a purely theological/philosophical level, I have to say it's somewhat hard to swallow. I REALLY want to believe that I'm not actually that bad, that I could potentially dig myself out of the hole I find myself in. Perhaps I need some help here and there, but ultimately I can make something of myself if I try hard enough.
But when I compare this doctrine to my own actual experience in life, I can only cry for mercy. My experience with addiction and powerlessness convinces me that my will is not, in fact, free. I am powerless to change the destructive patterns of sin that have dominated my life. And any other addict who is able to be honest with herself would agree with me here. The drunk can not choose not to drink. The heroin addict can not choose not to shoot up. The man who stays up at night worrying can't choose to just stop thinking about his worries and go to sleep. The woman addicted to others' approval can't choose not to care what others think. The sex addict can't choose not to think lustful thoughts about other people. And honestly, I can't believe in free will when faced with my own addictions, because free will is just not true for me, or for my brothers and sisters in (Alcoholics, Workaholics, Sexaholics, whatever-else-aholics) Anonymous. God, in His grace, uses our addictions to show us every day that we are powerless without Him. We are constantly and undeniably confronted with the reality of the doctrine of total depravity.
Yet we DO deny it; we all want to believe that if we just get serious this time, we can clean this mess up and get things back on track. If we just pray harder, try harder, think harder, work harder... But experience proves us wrong. If, by God's grace, we are honest with ourselves, we all know that our will is bound, even if our addiction isn't to something like alcohol or drugs or sex.
And this is the key for all of us. The 12-step tradition recognizes that until an addict recognizes, admits, and accepts the fact that he/she is in fact an addict, recovery is not possible. That is to say, until I recognize that I can not save myself, I can not be saved. If there is any hint of self-sufficiency in my mind, I will never accept the grace of Christ as being sufficient for me in all things. My addictions have convinced me that if I have any hope, it is in a power higher than myself, namely Jesus Christ.
I'd love some comments on this! Let me know what you think, even if you think I'm insane (which is altogether possible...). Tune in next time for a discussion of one of the more controversial points of Calvinism, Unconditional Election (known on the street as predestination, or among some, the-doctrine-of-which-we-do-not-speak). Should be interesting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great thoughts. Garrett and I have been listening to a CD series by Tommy Nelson (Denton Bible Church) on the history of religion and have had these very conversations recently. It's all very convicting. Hope RTS is going well for you. G just started his 2nd class and is enjoying it so far.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it is here, Adam, right at the beginning, that the difference of belief between Calvin and the Catholic Church are so radically made clear. The Church teaches (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 405) in Original Sin, human nature has *not* been totally corrupted. Because of Original Sin man is wounded, i.e. he is deprived of original holiness and justice, he is ignorant and capable of suffering and death, furthermore man is inclined to sin, i.e. is subject to concupiscence.
ReplyDeleteBut because of what follows, it seems that while the Church would say man is not 'totally depraved' your conclusions are more or less the same as hers. For example, the Church teaches that God's grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God. Likewise, the Church would condemn any teaching which implied that man could earn his own salvation or justification, for she teaches it is always a gift from God.
~WBS
BTW, is the theology you're learning based off of John Calvin or Jacob Arminius?
ReplyDelete(Forgive me if I post a third thought)
ReplyDeleteWould you say, that all of man's works (prior to justification) are sins, i.e. merit the hatred of God?
What about efforts of one who strives to dispose himself for grace?
Will,
ReplyDeleteOne of my observations so far in my readings is that a lot of the writings that constitute much of the historic theological debate between the Protestant movement and the Roman Catholic tradition has involved a lot of inflammatory language, and it can be really hard to sift through that and get to the heart of what each side believes. I find this really counterproductive and insensitive to the common man who seeks to understand the ways of God and the doctrines of the Church. I'm finding a lot of this kind of language in the things I am reading for my classes, and it's somewhat disheartening to me. I believe that substantive debate on the teachings of the bible are productive and healthy for the Church, and that's what I hope to do in my life and ministry, and interaction with those who don't agree with me.
In that spirit, though I don't know if you and I agree or disagree on this, I would ask you to explain a little more of the Catholic Church's teaching on this. In what way is human nature not corrupted? What part remains untouched by sin? Am I even asking the right questions here? In other words tell me more.
In response to your second question, RTS is firmly Calvinist in their theology, and would say that the Arminian view, while not outright heresy, is a serious theological error. They accept the Canons of Dordt as a faithful summary of the bible's teaching on soteriology, though not as an exhaustive theological statement. For this they point to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Will,
ReplyDeleteNo forgiveness is needed my friend! Thanks for your thoughts on all this.
I would say that outside the saving work of God, no one is capable of righteousness. I'm talking here about our motivations. I would say that I do believe that our motivations are corrupted outside of Christ, so that I may do a good work prior to justification, but that I would certainly be doing it for the wrong reasons. For example, we would all agree that it's good for a person to give food to a hungry person. But I would say that if I had done this before I knew Christ, I would not be doing it out of reverence for Christ and a desire to demonstrate his love. So while my actions may be good, my motives are not for the glory of God.
I should also say that I have a hard time with the idea of my actions "disposing" me for grace. It seems to me that grace, by definition, is goodness freely given by God to one who is patently undeserving. So in order for grace to be grace, I would say it can't depend in any way on the posture or disposition of the recipient. Would you suggest a different view? Help me understand where you're coming from.
I. What is the Church's teaching on post-lapsarian human nature? In what way is human nature not corrupted? What part remains untouched by sin? What questions need be asked?
ReplyDeleteI think the question we need to address, is what was man's original state (prelapsarian man) since the doctrine of grace is intimately connected with the doctrine of original sin. Catholics believe God created man with both natural and preternatural gifts as well as further bestowing upon him sanctifying grace. Thus Catholicism understands Adam to have been infused with grace while in the garden for the purpose of helping his free will to make right decisions.
As I understand him, Martin Luther did not hold to this teaching. He argued that original righteousness was not a gift separate from man's nature, but that it was truly part of man's nature. It follows from Luther's premise then that since original justice was due to man's nature, by a necessity of essence, when Adam sinned and lost original justice, his nature was therefore essentially corrupted and his faculties intrinsically vitiated. Luther logically concluded then that man is incapable of doing any good, and whatever 'virtue' he practices is due to God alone since all man's actions are per se sins.
Catholic Theology agrees that because of original sin, the human race lost God's gift of sanctifying grace, as well as preternatural gifts such as bodily immortality, integrity, and the state of happiness enjoyed by Adm and Eve. Yet our intellects, while darkened, are still able to know God by the light of pure reason and our free will, while weakened and no longer readily inclined to the good has not been extinguished. Further we are weak in overcoming trials and practicing virtue and subject to concupiscence, or the lost of integrity in the control of the appetites and passions. Its seems essential that man maintain his free will. Free will, in order to be free, necessitates the absence of force or coercion. This is important because man (not God) makes his ways evil (God never acts in an evil manner though He does permit evil to be chosen over His goodness). Grace then works with man's freedom – not in opposition to it. The impenetrable mystery of divine grace is located in the mutual cooperation of God's power and human freedom. This is a mystery which the Church does not profess to fully understand, but nonetheless defends from either extreme.
II. Adam: I would say there is no saving work outside of God; no one is capable of righteousness. Focus on motivations.
ReplyDeleteI believe God has destined man to a supernatural end, namely, the face-to-face vision of God which involves a share in the divine life itself. Such an end completely surpasses the natural ability of man to attain it; man is not able, solely on the basis of his natural resources, to do anything that is meritorious of eternal life. This works in conjunction with Catholic theology of the original state of man – Adam was gifted not only with a nature, but also above and beyond that natural gift, God gave Adam sanctifying grace.
The Church affirms that man cannot say that without divine grace through Jesus Christ, man can be justified before God by his own works. That is to say, I can say with you, “there is no saving work outside of God”. As St. Thomas Aquinas would point out: the natural can never attain the supernatural. Against Semi-Pelagian thought(the idea that man needs divine grace to be saved, but that the first steps in the process of attaining faith in Jesus Christ come from man himself, without the grace of God) the Church teaches that by his own unaided efforts man cannot do anything to merit eternal life.
However, this is not to say that everything man does is sinful. Take for example the brothers, Cain and Able, who were without the sanctifying grace lost by their father. Yet God was pleased with Abel's sacrifice (Hebrews11:4) and displeased by that of Cain. Abel found favor with God because of his faithfulness, and evidentially Cain was unfaithful and so his sacrifice was unpleasing. Because of the inheritance of Original Sin, the proclivity to sin was strong and Cain murdered his brother. Yet while it was easier for Cain to sin and follow his own way, nonetheless, he had sufficient power from God to have refrained from sin. We already saw that Abel had apparently done precisely this; Abel had used the grace that God had given him and thus was made pleasing to God by his faith and works. Cain, shunned this grace and decided to take control of his own life (as his father had done before him, aka the pattern of all sin).
As then, so too now. Man, even without sanctifying grace is confronted with decisions of good and evil. He is made for the good yet inclined towards the evil. When he chooses good it is because he has cooperated with the actual grace provided by God to assist him to overcome the temptation to evil. When man chooses evil it is because he has rejected God's grace and has opted instead to do things his way.
III. Can actions dispose one for reception of grace? Adam: It seems grace, by definition, is goodness freely given by God to one who is patently undeserving. So in order for grace to remain unadulterated, it cannot depend on the posture or disposition of the recipient.
The Catholic Church, understands grace is God Himself; it is dynamic and personal. It is a perpetual outpouring of divine love, mercy, and benevolence. Grace is gentle; it is an invitation from God to man; it is not dictatorial and it is not coercive. Actual grace can be resisted by man's free will and sanctifying grace can be lost through mortal sin. Our free cooperation with grace, therefore, is our proper response to the prior love of God. Furthermore, man, by prayer, disposes himself to receive the graces which God desires to share with him. Man does not deserve these graces – they are always gift – but man can we imagine open his hands to receive the gifts God wishes to bestow upon him, or again open his mouth to drink from the stream of living water flowing forth from God.
Will,
ReplyDeleteThis is thoroughly challenging and encouraging for me. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this.
You say: Thus Catholicism understands Adam to have been infused with grace while in the garden for the purpose of helping his free will to make right decisions.
I don't know what Luther or Calvin or any of the Reformed people say about this, but based on what I know of their doctrine of God and man, I would say they probably agree with you so far. I can't imagine any of them suggesting that man was ever righteous by his own merits, apart from the grace of God, even before the Fall. I could be wrong, but that's my impression so far.
When it comes to the state of Man after the Fall, you say that Catholics believe that "our intellects, while darkened, are still able to know God by the light of pure reason and our free will, while weakened and no longer readily inclined to the good has not been extinguished."
I'm having trouble reconciling this with Paul's statement that we are "dead in our transgressions" (Eph. 2:5, Col 2:13). It sounds to me like you're saying that we're not actually dead...perhaps mortally wounded, but not quite dead. And again, Paul in his letter to the Ephesians says of the Gentiles, in their fallen state, that "they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." And further in the same passage he says of the "old self" that it is "corrupt through deceitful desires." If fallen man's desires themselves are deceitful, how can it be said that he is "still able to know God by the light of pure reason and [his] free will"?
Some other thoughts on free will. First, I think when it comes down to it, none of us actually believes in an entirely "free" will. Whether we recognize it or not, everyone who asserts that man's will is free actually means that his will is free within certain bounds. For example, no man is free to choose to be in two places at once. He may desire this, and he may even try to accomplish it somehow, but the fact is that he is not free to actually do this. He is bound by the physical limitations of his body. We may say that he is free to do as he wishes in one place, but he can never by "free will" make himself to be present in two places simultaneously.
I use this example to illustrate that whatever freedom of will man does have is finite; it is set within certain bounds, whether physical or intellectual or spiritual or whatever else. And I would suggest that the bible paints a picture of fallen man as being entirely free to sin. God has not determined in what ways and at what times each person will sin. Each person freely chooses how and when and where. But I would also say that fallen man is NOT depicted as being free to choose to save himself. He can not choose not to sin; he can not choose righteousness. He is dead, and the dead can not of themselves choose to be alive again. If a dead man is to live again, he must be brought back to life by one who is not bound by life and death.
In your example of Cain and Abel, what in the passage suggests that God's acceptance of Abel's offering is based on Abel's faithfulness? I ask this because my professor would point to this passage as strong evidence that God's acceptance is based entirely on God's good pleasure, and not on man's faithfulness. He would say that God chose to accept Abel's offering for reasons we can not know, in the same way that he chose to love Jacob and to hate Esau, before they were even born. It seems that you would disagree...help me understand why.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of grace, you say "Grace is gentle; it is an invitation from God to man; it is not dictatorial and it is not coercive." And I have to agree with you on 90% of this. Grace is gentle. It is not dictatorial or coercive. But to your list I have to add "effectual". God's grace achieves what it sets out to accomplish. So I have disagree with your statement that "sanctifying grace can be lost through mortal sin." I'll be sharing more of my thoughts on this in my next post, so I'll hold off on saying very much now. But if it's possible for each person to lose their salvation by mortal sin, then it's possible for every person to lose their salvation, and for Jesus to have died for no one. I also think there is abundant biblical support for this, but again I'll be talking more about that in my next post.
Cain and Abel:
ReplyDeleteI can certainly see your professor's understanding. It is true that this sets a president for God passing over the eldest son in favor of another which we see when Isaac is preferred to Ishmael, Jacob to Esau, and David to his brothers. I have read the argument that the origin of Cain's sin lies in the fact that he does not accept God's preference for his younger brother, and he gives way to anger, envy, and gloominess. But, as you suggest, I disagree with this interpretation. In verse 6 God speaks to Cain prior to his sin. He says, “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” This seems to imply that Cain has not done well and for this reason his sacrificial offering was rejected. I admit this is not strongly supported, yet it seems valid → I suggest we compare and contrast the offerings of Cain and Abel. Of Cain it says he made an offering of the fruit of the ground. Fair enough. But of Abel we read that his offering was the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions, i.e. he offered his best to the Lord. Now it does not say that Cain did not offer his best, only that he made an offering, but the text makes clear that Abel's offering is of his best and if we can read into the omission perhaps Cain's was not of equal value?
You asked what in the passage suggests that God's acceptance of Abel's offering is based on Abel's faithfulness. What I have already said seems to agree with my statement, but I admit hardly demands such an understanding. To be honest, I look for Abel's faithfulness in the passage and reject the contrary, following the example of the New Testament authors. Hebrews 11:4 reads, “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts”. St. John interprets the story of Cain in the same sense. He writes, “This is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love another and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.” (1Jn3:11-12).
One final point on this passage if I may. The final phrase of verse 7 where God tells Cain with reference to sin, 'you must master it'. As I read it, God loves Cain too, and God invites Cain to master Satan and evil temptations by acting rightly. Of course Cain fails to do so and murder is introduced to human history. Why, if Cain were helpless to do good and avoid evil, would God tell him to master sin?
With regard to Luther vs. Catholicism, I beg to differ with you. As I understand it, Luther is not in agreement with what I wrote, yet nor does he fall into the error you describe. Luther neither thinks man is righteous by his own merits, nor that man prior to the fall had a nature without sanctifying grace. My understanding of Catholicism is that prelapsarian man had an uncorrupted nature that did not include supernatural grace, but that he nonetheless also had supernatural Grace as an additional gift of God. Luther would not see the two as separate, but say that the supernatural grace was integral to man's unfallen nature. From this difference in premise flows a great divergence in conclusions.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the first points, I think we are reading with different definitions. When you say dead with reference to St. Paul I know you and he cannot mean physically dead i.e. separation of body and soul. Therefore you and he must mean that they are supernaturally dead which I would understand as separation from man of the divine life of God. The grace by which St. Paul says we have been saved, is the supernatural life of God which He shares with man which Catholics call Sanctifying Grace. This is our participation in the Divine Life of God and thus the 'life more abundant' which Jesus promises us. But this supernatural life while infinitely better, does not mean that the life of one dead in sin is not life. The man without sanctifying Grace still lives naturally and is called to 'seek the Lord while He may be found.'
I think we also are reading 'corrupt through deceitful desires” differently. Your interpretation is that 'fallen man's desires themselves are deceitful” by which are you are saying that man, in desiring, sins?
When I say that man by pure reason may come to know God, I meant not that He would come to know the fullness of revelation, but rather at least the existence of God. I want to establish that man, even with his fallen nature, has reason and can come to know truth. Of course by grace man can come to know 'the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge' (Eph 3:19).
**N.B. I have not addressed your points on Free Will and Grace. **
Do I correctly understand your silence on Free Will and Grace to be a concession of defeat?!?
ReplyDeleteJust kidding. Thanks again for this...it's really making me think a lot. Let's continue this once I get around to posting on Unconditional Election.
Fair enough. :)
ReplyDeleteHey, we're dealing with Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God... these are deep issues to be pondered over and more importantly prayed over. :)
And, for the record, not concession, just patient but eager anticipation.