Two pastors talk about their theological differences and commonalities in civil, respectful dialog.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Common Grace and Prevenient Grace
Thanks for your insight, Oscar, on Calvin's understanding of common grace. That's all very interesting about common grace because as it was explained to me, common grace held in check human sinfulness enough to make it possible for us to live together in (at least somewhat) civil society. It was almost a political aspect of Calvin's theology, but I see now that it is much more comprehensive.
As for your discussion of "will," I am wondering how "free" will really is a will at all if all we can ever do is choose the evil? Doesn't that simply destroy the meaning of "will" entirely? Doesn't having a will entail that there is at least a choice between two options. Think of Adam and Eve in the garden (even if you read these stories as myth which I do). I think the point from this narrative must be that from the very beginning God has given us a choice to obey or disobey. Or would you say we are under a different "dispensation" now that we are living after the Fall?
Just so we're clear, Wesleyans also believe that salvation is a pure gift of God. And we also believe that, were in not for the prevenient grace of God already at work in our hearts, we could not choose to accept his gift of salvation. So perhaps the distinction between what you call common grace and what I call prevenient grace is really infinitesimal. However, I do believe that God's gift of salvation is not something forced upon us. We have a genuine choice to receive or reject that gift. And I think that is one area we might disagree (if I am reading you correctly).
Another matter we certainly agree on is that of "social sin." In fact, John Wesley took this so far as to picture a worldwide revival of all people and institutions which would sweep the globe and which would usher in God's kingdom at the eschaton. We, too, believe in fallen systems which keep people in oppression and that these systems bear the mark of the Fall just as individuals do. The redemption spoken of in Scripture is cosmic is scope -- and I know you agree with this from our previous talks. Sadly, many evangelicals have so individualized salvation that we've lost sight of this very biblical vision (see the OT prophets, Romans 8, or the entire book of Revelation, for example).
The issue of disagreement does seem to be this: "Where does human fallenness still have sway and where does God's grace (common or prevenient) UNDO or trump the effects of this corruption?" In general, it seems that those of the Reformed perspective have a much darker view of what it mean to be human than do Wesleyans simply because we Wesleyans see God's grace in more places, in more systems, and in more people (as my friend Rick is suggesting very eloquently). As a result, we are most optimistic about human nature, about God's presence in other religions, and about the ability of human systems to accomplish great good -- all the result of God's prevenient grace.
I certainly appreciate your admonition for us to unitedly oppose all sin and systemic evil despite our theological differences. And I believe that is precisely what we are trying to do together here in Indianapolis.
Blessings,
Greg the Arminian
P.S. Rick, I really loved your argument for a greater appreciation and emphasis on the goodness within humanity. I think we can agree that we are mixtures. Perhaps you are right that the doctrine of the fall has overshadowed the doctrine of "original goodness" and I do agree that this has had many negative impacts on evangelical spirituality. I suppose we are all impacted by our context (I know that you're postmodern enough to agree with that) and as one who has been living in the inner city for almost three years now, I must say I am overwhelmed at times by the extend of original sin and how it has infiltrated every person and every structure in our community. But, of course, even here the good is among us.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
If I may interject here....
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