As we begin our discussion of the basics of Calvinist theology and the alternative that Wesleyan-Arminians offer, it is fitting that we begin with biblical anthropology -- that is, how the Scriptures view human beings. Calvinists like to use the term "total depravity" to describe the state of man. Oscar can correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I understand it: the doctrine of total depravity teaches us that there is absolutely nothing good in any of us.
In fact, according to this teaching we are so corrupted by the fall that it is even impossible for us to intellectually distinguish between good and evil. The fall has been complete and that includes our moral compass. As the great St. Augustine (second only to St. Paul in his influence in the development of the church) once stated, we constantly sin "in thought, word, and deed" -- often even unaware of our actions' offensiveness to God.
Upon this point, Wesleyans are in great agreement. In fact, it was specifically regarding this issue that caused John Wesley to state that he was only "a hair's breadth away" from John Calvin. I cannot claim to speak authoritatively for Wesley himself, but I personally prefer the term "original sin" to "total depravity." What is the difference? Total depravity assumes, as I mentioned above, that we are so fallen that we cannot do anything good and, indeed, we are even unaware of the good. But I find this to underestimate what Wesleyans call the power of prevenient grace.
Prevenient grace literally means "the grace that goes before." It refers to the way in which God's gracious initiative is already at work in us even before we choose to accept him or become one of his children. The implications of this doctrine could make a full post in and of itself, but suffice it to say that Wesleyans believe that Christians do not have a monopoly on the work of God. (I have blogged about this before: click here). He is even at work (revealing Himself and his truth) in other world religions. We can see this is many examples from Scripture -- the widow at Zerepheth, Cornelius who although being an Italian gentile the Scripture describes as "devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly" (Acts 10:2), and many others who seemed to know at least partially about God before the Word was even preached to them.
For this reason, I do not believe that the unregenerate have no moral compass and no sense of right and wrong. In fact, Paul declares, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). God is working to reveal himself to all people, not just an elect group. So I shy away from language about total depravity because it seems to overlook God's prevenient grace at work among all nations. This is why we see good deeds performed by non-Christians (although I was once told by a five-point Calvinist that nothing good can ever come from an unbeliever since he does not know the truth of Christ).
Instead, I prefer the doctrine of "original sin." Wesleyan-Arminians believe that we will all sin, that all have fallen short of God's perfect standard, and that we have all inherited the sin nature of Adam and Eve. We are "bent" toward evil. When we look inside of ourselves, we can see selfishness and pride. Heck... I can see it in my two-year-old! But I like the way that the hymn writer states it in "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing": "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it; Prone to leave the God I love." We have a "proclivity" to do evil and there is no human who has ever completely resisted that inclination except for Jesus Christ. However, we do still have a basic sense of right and wrong. We are a mixture of good and evil -- thanks only to the grace of God at work in us all.
I hope it is obvious from what I have said that Arminians do not adopt the view of Pelagius (the heretic) who taught that we are morally neutral, neither good nor bad. Far from it! We are sinful beings and only a cursory look at the newspapers reveal this. However, our evil is tempered by the ever present prevenient grace of God. And, as a result, we are not TOTALLY depraved (thanks be to Him).
I'm sure Oscar will correct me where I've misrepresented the Calvinist position. I did not touch on the wonderful doctrine of "common grace" which John Calvin espoused. And I'm curious to know now similar that understanding is to what I've just described.
Your Brother,
Greg the Arminian
Now this idea of prevenient grace is an enigma to me. What do you mean by it?
ReplyDeleteWithin the reformed tradition we call it the prevenience of grace or common grace - that there is a grace common to unbelievers which holds back the full power of sin from being unleashed, and a common grace that keeps the world under God's care.
The United Methodist Book of Discipline explains it this way: Prevenient grace is "the divine love that surrounds all humanity and precedes any and all of our conscious impulses toward God. This grace prompts our first wish to please God, our first glimmer of understanding concerning God's will, and our 'first slight transient conviction' of having sinned against God. This grace also awakens in us an earnest longing for deliverance from sin and death and moves us toward repentance and faith." The point being that none of us are totally depraved because this prevenient grace is at work in us all! We all have a natural conscience.
ReplyDeleteDr. Gregory Neal states it this way: "Prior to our awareness of God, God prepares us to turn to him. Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me." (John 6:44; see also Jeremiah 31:3; 1 John 4:10) These, and other scriptures, are clear in demonstrating that God cultivates our hearts long before we have any inclination to turn to God. Even amidst the tattered shreds of our sinful existence, as fallen creatures totally incapable of even desiring to turn to God, the Holy Spirit creates within us a desire for a relationship with God. This gracious activity takes place well ahead of our consciousness of it... Scripture makes it plain that it is God's gift of grace which, initially, sparks our thought, interest, and desire to come to God."
Now perhaps Calvinists would agree with all of that. I don't know. But this doctrine, in effect, teaches that we are not really totally depraved.
Your assessment of the importance of prevenient grace is well-said here, Greg! It's important to note that Wesley didn't invent this idea though he is largely credited with emphasizing it more than most. In fact, St. Augustine employed the term in some of his interaction with Scripture. Dr. O'Malley also finds Calvin's usage of the term 'prevenient' though it is only for the elect. That 'prevenient' is geared toward salvation differentiates it from 'common' grace, in my estimation.
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of Wesley ever using "total depravity" since he never dealt systematically with 'TULIP' all in one occasion. In fact, he only used 'original sin' sparingly (aside from his largest treatise 'The Doctrine of Original Sin, according to Scripture, Reason, and Experience') and instead preferred 'inbred sin' or 'inbeing sin' to focus on the corruption/disease aspect of sin's stain.
Wesleyans could say that we believe in 'total depravity' in terms of the 'natural man' - that is humanity completely void and outside of the grace of God. But, as you point out, in reality, there is no such person completely void of God's grace (in this life, anyway).
Greg,
ReplyDeleteI would like to take the discussion a bit further by offering a perspective that questions the tradition way that this argument seems to develop.
What if we start with the assumption that Augustine was wrong--at least partially--like all of us? And that the doctrine of original sin explains his experience, but not universal human experience. When reading Augustine, I tended to resonnate with his sentiments, but my wife read him and said something along the line of, "Wow, this guy has a real problem." That caused me to consider if Augustinian thought is constituted in his maleness.
I also would like to challenge the suggestion that original sin can be empirically verified by the fact that we can observe evil in the world. We also can verify goodness, but for some reason we don't jump to a doctrine of original goodness based on it (even though the biblical narrative teaches original goodness or should I say "very goodness").
It seems to me that the Calvinistic impulse (and I am no expert here) seeks to preserve the sovereignty of God (irony intended) and the biblical foundation for revelation. BUT, the narrative begins with creation not with what has been entered into the theological canon as "THE FALL". Can human failure actually overcome the creative work of a sovereign God to the point that we would apply the term "original" to the second story rather than the first? Can it be that Pelagius become a heretic because he does not go far enough?
Rick,
ReplyDeleteI also thought the same thing as your wife reading Augustine. I had never thought of it as because of his maleness. I'm curious what other people think....Does Augustine resonate with men more than women? Could this explain (at least partially) his large role in organized church theology?
And yes... I realize this is getting into a whole gender debate we might not be ready to open so feel free so table this discussion.