Greg thanks for starting the conversation and for choosing such an easy topic like Total Depravity! Now I should qualify that I am not a five-point Calvinist, meaning that I think TULIP is a very crude and simplified way of distinguishing Calvin’s theology. His movements within each of these doctrines was more nuanced and allowed breathing room, however, there will be many who disagree with me at this point. With that being said let us proceed.
Total Depravity within the Reformed tradition has always dealt with the means by which people are saved. At this point, Greg and I will disagree but we do so because we see the same truth only in a different light. Reformed Christians believe that our human nature has been corrupted by sin. That means that if we were left to our own, we will always turn towards ourselves, we will always reject God; turn our backs on God’s will and God’s ways for our lives. With a belief that our very nature is sinful it only makes logical sense that our free will has been corrupted. Now Presbyterians make a distinction here because we do not believe that we have a ‘free’ will, emphasis on the free. We do have a ‘will’ but it always chooses sin over life and our will, consequently, seeks it own self-interests. So Presbyterians would argue, ‘is it really freedom that you can choose life and death?” or is freedom to live in complete joy and submission to Jesus Christ?(so if the son sets you free, you will indeed be free)
All of this culminates at the heart of the matter, can people earn their salvation? Since we are unable to lift ourselves out of this condition of sinfulness, we need some power or someone who can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. That is why within Presbyterian theology, salvation is a true gift of grace that we did not deserve or could ever with a pure heart seek out God and receive. The work of salvation is ultimately the kindness and love of Jesus Christ towards his creation. This begs us to ask another question, how does God choose His recipients of grace? I’m sure we’ll touch on this topic later on in our conversations.
However the concept of Total Depravity has progressed over the past few centuries and we now understand that sin has a social dimension as well. As millions of people make selfish choices they impact the social structures of the world, so that institutions, nations, and legislature can be deemed sinful. As Reformed Christians we call this ‘social sin’ and believe that this is the real affront against the Kingdom of God. The social sins of people have created the different kingdoms of this world, which God’s Kingdom is constantly coming up against. So as reformed Christians who believe that the power of sin is real, and that sin can hold the minds and hearts of people captive, we believe that regenerated Christians are called as ambassadors into the other kingdoms of this world to bring about the ethics and morals of the Kingdom of God.
I leave us with this thought, no matter how deep sin has truly permeated our being, we can both agree that sin is destructive and seeks to consume our neighborhoods, families, and friends. So both Wesleyan and Presbyterian Christians must take a united stand against injustice, in all its forms, and be diligent about pursuing righteousness, so that Christ's witness may be more clearly seen and known.
Sincerely,
Oscar the Reformed
Greg and Oscar,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the friendly and warm environment you've created for this dialog. It's good stuff.
We're all biased in our opinions, so I'll just state mine up front: "Hi. My name is Jeremy, and I'm a Wesleyan-Arminian." :)
Oscar, you wrote above: "Now Presbyterians make a distinction here because we do not believe that we have a ‘free’ will, emphasis on the free. We do have a ‘will’ but it always chooses sin over life and our will, consequently, seeks it own self-interests."
How would you go about explaining what I and many others have experienced/witnessed: pre-Christians (unregenerate folks) displaying the fruits of the Spirit in the world, and "Christians" displaying the worst traits that humanity has to offer?
-Jeremy
Are we referring to "total depravity" and "orginal sin" in terms of a conscious-level inward posture toward God? From the two previous posts, it appears that we're actually considering moral acts -- whether they be interior or exterior. I simply state this in regard to the idea that we can "do" no good apart from God (whether it be by prevenient grace or by God's grace working through us by nature of our election).
ReplyDeleteIt seems natural to say that we experience "conscience" as a universal characteristic, even unto the heathen. (It's been a while, but I believe C.S. Lewis used this universal concept as the basis for his "moral law" argument for the existence of God.) We can understand conscience in two senses: 1. posterior conscience - what we most often experience as guilt, and 2. anterior conscience - the evaluative process which takes place before an act. The first sense may be considered a universal characteristic of the human experience -- a general sense of value; to be human is to be accountable. The second sense is not considered universal since, through the reasoning process of our "conscience," we may arrive at different judgments.
Even within a religious context, other traditions outside Christianity would look to the moral law as being instituted by God. Certainly Wesley may say that prevenient grace is at work in them, but where do they fit in the Calvinist context? Is there anything similar to Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christianity" going on here?
Finally, is there any room for a theistic evolutionist in this conversation? I would seek to rearticulate the doctrine of "original sin" in light of much of the scientific discovery of the past two centuries. Rather than saying we are all stained by sin because of the actions of a single couple, we can say that the latent tendency toward sin was present not in the first humans but in the first origins of life on earth. I don't believe clinging to monogenism is necessary for a strong doctrine of original sin.
Natural selection demands selfishness for the perpetuation and survival of living organisms. Naturally we would not say that a dog, or fish, or bacterium is "sinning" when it acts selfishly. We would have to wait for the evolution of human intelligence and moral reflection for it to be considered "sin." As morally reflective humans, free will enables us to overcome this tendency, but only with great effort. We incur guilt only when we freely choose to act on this selfish tendency (re-enter anterior conscience). Perhaps that is where the conversation actually begins -- Do we freely act selfishly and freely will ourselves to overcome our selfish tendencies?
There's more we could discuss as to what this means for God's intention for His creation, knowing that, in order to achieve His desire, he was injecting it with a proclivity to sin. Perhaps another time.
Keep up the good conversation!
Chris
(The Lutheran/Wesleyan/Catholic/Evolutionist)
Hey Chris,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting thoughts. I have a question after reading your comment. You stated:
"Finally, is there any room for a theistic evolutionist in this conversation? I would seek to rearticulate the doctrine of "original sin" in light of much of the scientific discovery of the past two centuries. Rather than saying we are all stained by sin because of the actions of a single couple, we can say that the latent tendency toward sin was present not in the first humans but in the first origins of life on earth."
I'm not debating the science and history of what you're stating. But within that theological framework, what then is the meaning of the cross and of salvation itself? Why do we need to be saved from something that is simply inherent to earthly life?
Blessings,
Jeremy
Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. To answer your question simply: Evolution. Much of our theological underpinnings are based on a static conception of the universe. If God created everything pretty much as we experience it today (fixity of species) about 6-8 thousand years ago, then we would rightly need an explanation for how man was created "perfect," fell, and is now reconciled to God.
But if we imagine God as in the process of creation, then part of that process is to transcend that hereditary inclination to sin. Again, keeping with orthodoxy, this is not something that any human being can accomplish on his own. God, knowing that life could not evolve any other way, also knew that he would need to send an incarnate example of perfect, divine altruism to show us how to transcend our original, perpetual selfishness. "So that, if anyone (is) in Christ, (that one is) a new creation; the old passed away, behold the new has come." That is perfect evolutionary language in my book.
The Christian God, in my estimation, is a God who cares and suffers with his creation. We are not mere "earthly creatures;" we carry the very image of God. And for us to truly reflect our Creator, we need a demonstration of the divine life.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Fr. Teilhard: "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience."
Blessings,
Chris
C.S. Lewis crafts his argument for "mere" Christianity based on a universal human condemnation of unfairness. If we are able, as he suggests, to condemn the sin we engage in, would it not be more descriptive to say humans are basically good, but somehow prone to falling short of the perfection that such goodness points to?
ReplyDeleteJeremy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the positive response to our blog.
The way that I would answer your question would be with the concept of common grace. Calvin speaks of it in his Institutions but very loosely and not with much definition, Abraham Kuyper expounds on the concept significantly during the 1800's, and recently Richard Mouw has written a good deal about it.
Common grace says that there is a certain amount of grace that is common to all humanity, which is attributing to at least three things. One is that common grace restraints the full force of sin in human life, another is that it retains the human conscience so that people have an inward voice or witness between good and evil, and, lastly, that God gives gifts to all people to use for the betterment of human culture.
The last one is of particular interests here because as you've said, we've all seen 'those coming into the kingdom, behave and do things which many would consider godly and wholesome. Common grace says that just like God brings rain to both the just and unjust, so does God shower all of us with good gifts to use with one another. That's why great leaps in science, literature, and all the other fields are able to take place because God has infused humanity with gifts. Now reformed thought would also qualify to say that just like Christians, good gifts can be misused.
Now that is a very simple response but at least it gives you a little bit of context for a longer response. Now Jeremy let me pose to you the same question, why is it that those coming into the kingdom can do good things?" I'd love to read your response.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments - I can tell you've thought and wrestled with some heavy issues and implications.
In my next post I hope to talk a little about your question of evolutionary theism. This has been a great topic of conversation with a church member who works in neuroscience. His job is to create drugs that modify behavioral responses to outside stimuli - such as stress, anxiety, etc. It is fascinating to see how he navigates an issue like original sin and origins within his expertise.
Looking forward to your future contributions.
Oscar,
ReplyDeleteYour explanation of common grace is very helpful. But, it is built on the assumption of the total depravity of humans, correct?
I suppose the starting point makes all the difference. When I see pre-Christians doing good in the world, it is evidence to me that total depravity is incoherent with reality.
But on the other hand, if total depravity is assumed, then common grace makes perfect sense in explaining pre-Christians doing good.
So with that in mind, the logical next question would be: What are the origins (both Scriptural and theological) of total depravity? Is it a valid foundation?
***Short answer to your question above: We were originally made good by God, were infected by sin, and now live as beings who are mixtures of light and darkness, capable of doing both good and evil of our own volition. I believe this is coherent with both reality and the Biblical narrative.
Jeremy, I'm a Reformed guy who believes in Total Depravity and I like the point you made above about non Christians doing good. I wonder if sometimes Reformed and Arminian have differing views of what the word good means. Can non Christians really do things that are pleasing to God if they aren't in Christ? Are their good works worth anything? I would assume that if even our works our as filthy rags and we are in Christ that those outside of the faith's would be as well. What is good I guess is my question.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying this blog, we have so much to learn from each other and we can encourage each other in so many ways.
Andrew(The Presbyterian, EPC)
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteDefining "good" is very important. Arminians are more optimistic in my opinion about our ability to do so since we emphasize God's grace at work to sharpen our consciences. Calvinists are less optimistic about our ability to really discern the good since even our moral conscience is so depraved. Hopefully, I'm not misrepresenting here. But, at least in my view, I know what good is when I see it and I see it alive and well among many non-believers. Oscar might say I'm deluding myself... and I can't really prove him wrong. :)
- Greg the Arminian
Chris and Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the evolution issue (which is an aside to our main discussion), I would recommend a fantastic book that really influenced my thinking called "The Lost World of Genesis One" by John Walton (I think) of Wheaton. Check it out.
I do NOT recommend the book "Thank God for Evolution" even thought it tries to address the issue. Very poor scholarship.