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borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and everlasting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 On the other hand, soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time, withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of natural gifts.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

4 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Understanding man based upon "total depravity" falls in line with the lower levels of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlburg's model. In Kohlburg's moral development model, the first stage of moral development is "fear of punishment", while a higher level is "the conventional level" where one "obeys" the rules to maintain "social order". The highest stage, the principled stage, lends itself to social or civil disobedience. In this stage, Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr. would all fit.

In reading this entry, it seems to me that the Church would be limiting moral development to the lower stages...teaching about God's wrath against sin, leads to an obedience of/by fear....while teaching about the "rules" of the Ten Commandments would lend itself to obedience to the conventional stage maintaining social order. Those who by faith, such as Daniel, and others listed in Hebrews 11, are those who stood up for their beliefs reagardless of the context...and many of them were martyred. These are those who take personal responsibility for their convictions and commitments irregardless of consequences. What are the issues that the Church should be discussing? (I don't think that total depravity is an issue that lends itself to change because God is the one who does the work of changing.)

In this sense, moral development happens when a person grows enough in their convictions to stand against the tide of convention and social control and order to be a "light in THAT darkness"...To bring about change in the social order...throughout history this has happened and as a result, the captives were freed.

Education is the means to grace in many instances. And much change happens within the political realm. But, research has shown there are those whose prejuidice resides within their own personalities. And prejuidice does not lend itself to change.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

In thinking a little more deeply about this issue, identity issues are at stake here. How does one define Christianity or being a Christian? Is it by an experience of "conversion" from paganism, or unbelief? Is it by tradition in training of parents and baptism of the Church? Is it through reason in searching for meaning and finding a purpose?

Calvin, et al, believed that people are converted by a supernatural act of God because we cannot respond to grace and cannot even see grace. In distinction to the Calvinist view, Romans seems to say that all of creation testifies to God. Nature itself is graced. Therefore, understanding man can be a means of understanding God. And understanding man is not found within theological arenas alone, but psychology, sociology, biology, philosophy, history, and anthropology.

Big Trent said...

If human kind has some "natural gifts" resembling the image of God, but they cannot be used for the purpose of salvation, then what is the purpose behind having them? What would we have will or reason for if not for the purpose of seeking and finding and enjoying a relationship with God?

It seems to me that any hint of free will or any any shred of sovereignty in humanity over thought and action immediately negates such a belief. But then again, maybe God determined that I would think such things...

Big Trent said...

Thanks Angie for looking at this issue from a different perspective.

I'm really trying to separate the ideas of free will and predestination so that I can understand how a person could be predestined even with a free will. I can accept that God has the sovereignty to choose who he will and will not save, but I can't understand how he would grant "will" to anyone if that would be his intention. It is that grant that paints God as malicious. He can damn anyone he wants, but to allow people the ability to desire good and only hanging the possibility of deliverance over their heads with no way to obtain it is where things begin to not make sense

If we are to seek to be like God. Is that the kind of character he wants us to develop?