I've been studying Calvinism for several months now, and I've come to appreciate Calvinism's coherent approach to theology. The system makes sense. Do I believe it? No. But before I get into why I don't believe it, I have to say this: although I disagree with some of the finer points of Calvinistic doctrine, I've found that I agree with 90% of what they have to say. The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism--between Bondage of the Will & Freedom of the Will, and all the implications--has skewed things so much that people on either side of the debate start thinking that the disagreements are insurmountable. In fact, Calvinists and Arminians agree on most things in regards to the Christian faith, and although I believe in free will, conditional salvation, and the danger of "falling away," I've learned so much from the books I'm reading, and I've been quickened and strengthened in my faith.
So: "Why do I disagree with Calvinism?"
The answer: I don't believe in Total Depravity.
And without Total Depravity, the entire Calvinist system falls apart.
Here's what I mean: Total Depravity comes as the first letter in the TULIP acronym created to highlight "benchmark beliefs" of traditional Calvinism. As the "T" in the acronym, Total Depravity is the foundation of the following four points. Total Depravity declares that the entire human race is totally depraved as a result of Adam's sin; this depravity is so pervasive that man in his natural state won't choose God because he doesn't want to choose God. Thus, God must choose man before man chooses God. God, then, must decide whom He will save, and He does this prior to the creation of the world; this is Unconditional Election, the "U" in TULIP. Having decided whom He would save, God limited the suffering of Christ to the exact number of the predestined; this is Limited Atonement, the "L" in TULIP. Because of total depravity, the elect are unable to choose God without God's intervention; this is Irresistible Grace, the "I" in TULIP. God bestows faith upon those chosen to receive it, and this bestowal of faith is so irresistible that the chosen cannot refuse it. The P in TULIP is the Perseverance of the Saints, in which God guarantees that those whom He has chosen will never lose the faith He has given. If anyone "falls away" from an earthly perspective, that is simply evidence that he was never saved in the first place, since anyone who is saved cannot fall away. The entire Calvinist system rests upon the authenticity of Total Depravity: if Total Depravity is true, then it follows that the Calvinist system of theology is true as well. Conversely, if Total Depravity is NOT true, then the entire Calvinist system collapses.
My reasons for rejecting Calvinism are four-fold:
(1) Partial Depravity was the consensus of the Early Church. Those who don't hold to Total Depravity are often accused of holding to the teachings of Pelagius, who went head-to-head with Augustine over the issue of "Original Sin" (the idea that mankind inherits both guilt and depravity from Adam's rebellion in the Garden of Eden); while Augustine laid the foundation for Total Depravity, which the Reformers would build upon, Pelagius believed that people were born sinless, in a state of purity, without any inherited effects from Adam's rebellion. Pelagianism, however, is NOT the only other option. Partial Depravity--the belief that mankind inherits a sinful nature from Adam, stands guilty for personal sin, and is able to exercise free will--has been misappropriately called "Semi-Pelagianism." When Augustine and Pelagius went head-to-head in the theological arena, Christendom found itself polarized between the two. Those who didn't swing left to Pelagius nor right to Augustine were caught in the middle; these were the ones who clung to the traditional view of what has been called "Partial Depravity". Historically, partial depravity originated earliest with Irenaeus in the late 2nd century A.D.; he declared that all people are "born in sinfulness." Tertullian in the early 3rd century declared that "every soul... by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam..." Origen, also in the 3rd century A.D., declared that "[no] one is free from defilement, not even the day-old child." The marked difference between partial depravity and total depravity is the belief that although mankind is indeed depraved--and very depraved--free will remains intact, which leads me to Point #2:
(2) The historical consensus of the early church was that men have the responsibility and ability to choose or reject Christ. Adherents of total depravity insist that mankind's will is in bondage to his sinfulness to such a point that he is unable, not as a victim but as a culprit, to respond positively to the gospel, since his natural inclination is to hate God and to hate righteousness; therefore, God must regenerate him prior to conversion so that he can make the choice of the will to turn to God and live. To say that mankind isn't totally depraved isn't to say that mankind is pretty good (Pelagianism is heresy). The Bible is pretty adamant through-and-through that mankind is downright evil, wicked, and rebellious. I agree with all the major tenets of Total Depravity with the exception of the bondage of the will. I disagree because if the bondage of the will were so adamantly taught by Paul (and a handful of Pauline texts are used as proof-texts for Total Depravity), then why did his successors tend to think the opposite way? What makes more sense: Paul taught Total Depravity, and his successors taught Free Will? Or that Paul didn't teach total depravity, and his successors were in league with him? Entire research papers have been written quoting the apostolic and early church fathers on the subject of free will, so here are three of the most poignant I could find:
Justin Martyr (2nd century A.D.): “And
again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good
by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions…”
Minucius Felix (3rd century A.D.): “For
God made man free, and with power over himself… That, then, which man brought
upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to
him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him… so,
obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life
everlasting.”
Hippolytus (3rd century A.D.): “[Jesus]
might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made
nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination,
inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with the power to
do both.”
Origen (3rd century A.D.): “This also
is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church, that every rational soul is
possessed of free-will and volition.”
Arnobius (3rd century A.D.): “To all,
He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from
drinking. If you are so fastidious as to spurn the kindly offered gift… why
should He keep on inviting you, while His only duty is to make the enjoyment of
His bounty depend on your own free choice?.. Nay, my opponent says, if God is
powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and
compel us to trust in His promises. This, then, is violence, not kindness nor
the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get
the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and
unwilling to reverse their inclinations, to impress forcibly on their minds
what they are unwilling to receive.”
These early Christians don't hold the same weight as scripture, but they do offer us windows into the thought processes of the early church. It seems evident that the concept of free will and the ability to choose or reject the gospel were widely-held in the church era following the apostles. John Calvin noted this, as well, and accused the early church fathers of "caving in" to Greek philosophy, adding in his Institutes, "[Even] though the Greeks above the rest--and Chrysostom especially among them--extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings." Thus Calvin affirms that the vast majority of the early church fathers ("all the ancients") believed in free will, even though they differed on points. Calvin insists that nothing can be gleaned from the early church fathers, with the sole exception being Augustine. Augustine stands as the "odd man out" in a sweep of patristic approaches to free will, and since Calvin's theology is dependent upon Augustine being right and everyone else being wrong, of course he insists that Augustine is the only one we should pay attention to. So let's pay him some attention with Point #3.
(3) Saint Augustine laid the foundation for Total Depravity off a mistranslation of Scripture in the Latin Vulgate. "Original Sin" is the teaching that Adam's descendants inherit from Adam's "first sin" both guilt and total depravity. During the Reformation Era, both Luther and Calvin agreed with Augustine on the subject of "Original Sin," decreeing that Adam's sin had two consequences for the entire human race: every person is born in a state of total depravity (or in Luther's terms, "Bondage of the Will"), and every person is born guilty and condemned for Adam's sin (since Adam is mankind's representative), unless God intervenes. Major proof-texts for Original Sin include Psalm 51.5 (Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me), Psalm 58.3 (The wicked are estranged from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth), and Ephesians 2.3 ([We] too... were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest...) These texts on their own prove nothing; the "linchpin text" is Romans 5.12-21. Augustine built the foundation for Original Sin off his interpretation of Romans 5.12, but the Bible he used, the Latin Vulgate, had mistranslated the Greek text. Nowhere in Romans 5.12-21 does Paul speak of the guilt of Adam's sin passing on to his descendants biologically. Jewish teachers of Paul's day taught that Adam's disobedience introduced sin and death into the world, and that all his descendants shared in his guilt (4 Ezra 7.118; 2 Baruch 54.15); at the same time, they acknowledged that Adam's descendants shared in Adam's guilt because they willingly chose to follow in his footsteps (4 Ezra 7.118-26). Paul's writing in this passage reflects the Jewish conviction that Adam introduced sin and death into the world by his act of disobedience in the Garden, that the guilt of Adam passed on to his descendants, but this guilt didn't pass on biologically but by the individual choices of his descendants to engage in willful acts of disobedience. It is by personal choice--not intercourse--that mankind becomes his or her "own Adam." In this passage, Paul isn't arguing for "Original Sin" (a concept he wouldn't have been aware of); rather, he's contrasting Adam and Christ. Adam serves as an antithetical foreshadowing of Christ in the sense that just as Adam, by his disobedience, ushered in a certain type of age (characterized by death, condemnation, and judgment), so Christ, by his obedience on the cross, has ushered in a certain type of age (characterized by life, justification, and righteousness). This text puts the spotlight on the apocalyptic meaning of Christ's cross and how a shift in cosmic history has been inaugurated. All this to say, "Original Sin" (which laid the foundation for Total Depravity) is derived from a misinterpretation of one Pauline text and has little secondary support.
(4) The language in the New Testament implies that mankind has a choice to obey or reject the gospel. The New Testament is littered with passages that make it clear that people are able and expected to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance. Those who hold to Total Depravity must insist that faith and repentance aren’t human responses to the gospel but divine gifts imparted to those elected before the foundation of the world. Acts 5.31 and 11.18 say that God granted repentance to Israel and to the Gentiles, but this means that He’s granting these groups (rather than individuals within the groups) the opportunity and means to believe and repent. Ephesians 2.8 is used to show that faith itself is a gift of God; Paul writes, For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. A better reading based upon the Greek grammar is that we are saved by grace, as God’s part, but through faith, as our part. Faith isn’t a gift of grace and a result of regeneration but a response to grace and a prerequisite for regeneration. Another pertinent text is Ephesians 1.13, which reads, In [Christ] you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit… Here “hearing” and “believing” are aorist participles, suggesting that these acts—hearing and believing—precede the action of the main verb (sealing with the Spirit). The point is that (a) the New Testament throughout calls people to faith and repentance and (b) responding to the gospel appropriately results in the receiving of the Holy Spirit. If Total Depravity were true, (a) the calls to faith and repentance would fall upon deaf ears without the aid of the Holy Spirit, and thus (b) the Holy Spirit in regeneration must precede faith and repentance. It seems, however, that faith and repentance precede the Holy Spirit.
So there are four reasons I don't hold to Total Depravity. Holding to "partial depravity," I don't affirm Pelagius. I believe depravity cuts to the very heart of man, and that we are pervasively evil, even if we retain the ability to choose or reject God. Scripture paints a bleak portrait of the human condition (Martin Luther encapsulated it well with his phrase homo incurvatus en se, "humanity turned in on itself"), and my own heart reveals that depravity remains part of who I am. I'm at heart a selfish, arrogant, prideful, self-indulgent, sinful human being. God has made me a "new creation" and by His grace I've made long strides towards holiness; but any introspective look at my heart and life reveals caverns still in need of God's light, dark recesses where my sinful inclinations continue to kick and scream. If there's any argument against pelagianism, that argument is ME.
No comments:
Post a Comment