I'm reading Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy, and it is as fascinating as it is encouraging. Pinnock is trying to find a balance between a pessimistic soteriological stance, in which very few are saved, and Universalism--in which all people are saved. Both extremes are unacceptable, in his view. The discussion attempts to find an optimistic theology of salvation centered around the concept of the "pious pagans" of scripture like Job, Melchizedek, Cornelius, etc. ("pious pagans" is my paraphrase).
In the early chapters of the book, he finds fault with Augustine (rightly) for founding a narrow, pessimistic view of salvation. "There were features in Augustine's thinking which led him inexorably to a pessimism of salvation. In the bitter Pelagian controversy, for example, he was driven to emphasize the sheer gratuity of divine grace at the expense of any human contribution....Augustine took it in the direction of a pessimism of salvation. People are hopelessly lost in sin, can do nothing to save themselves, and deserve nothing from God as judge."(p.38)
Basically, Augustine, in response to Pelagius, went to the extreme of claiming that man cannot do any good on his own and is completely in need of God to offer Grace--even to give him the ability to accept it. But what was Pelagius saying? What is the Pelagian controversy?
I don't want to oversimplify it, but Pelagius was a theologian who claimed that it had to be possible, logically, for the average person to live a sinless life. And throughout history, the name "Pelagius" has been synonymous with controversy--if not heresy. At the heart of people's problems with this idea is the notion that, if it is possible to live a sinless life, Jesus' death is irrelevant. Most likely, the reader feels the same way. But, in the spirit of the Abyss, let me challenge the prevailing wisdom against Pelagius with my own thoughts!
It seems to me that taking a side in the Pelagian controversy is a natural thing to do, and unavoidable. And I understand why most people are offended by Pelagius. There are difficult ramifications to his idea. However, I think there are difficult ramifications of the opposite idea, as well. Let me explain.
Romans 3:23 states, "All sin and fall short of the glory of God," as I remember it. In other words, there is no person who does not sin--for this reason, the point of the epistle is that all people (Jew and Gentile) need a savior! I agree, otherwise I would be a heretic. But does this mean that it is impossible for me not to sin, or does it mean that I am tainted by the human condition to desire sin so much that the odds are infinitesimally small that I should live my entire life without ever giving in once?
Here is the crux of the argument. Most of us, except those of us who have accepted hardcore Calvinism, accept that we are free agents with the ability to choose what we will do from moment to moment. I think biblical Christian theology rests heavily on our own responsibility in sin. For that reason, I have to accept that in any case in which I am tempted to sin, I am faced with a choice. I can give in to the part of me that desires to sin, or I can choose not to. And, if I'm going to be transparent with you--sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If, in every case I am tempted to sin I have a choice, then it has to be logically possible (not probable, but possible) that I should make the right choice in every instance.
Now, most people accept that in each individual case I have free choice. But they tend to stop short when it comes to the overall picture. We have a tendency to say, "No, we can't live a sinless life--it's impossible." But I ask this question then, "At what point in my life do I enter a situation in which I have no choice but to sin?" Which time is it impossible not to sin? And if there is a point at which it is impossible not to sin, how can I be held accountable for something I have no choice in doing? Freedom necessitates the possibility of a sinless life.
Mind you, I'm not advocating that this is likely, or that any of us will achieve this. But I think it has to be possible--if not pragmatically, at least logically.
Usually someone will say something to the effect of, "Well, on a cognitive level, perhaps. But the fact that we can sin without knowing it makes it impossible to go through life without sinning." In response, I offer two answers:
1. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to sin without knowing it--the essence of sin is willing disobedience and rebellion. Romans also states that sin is not imputed when there is no law--and Paul states that when he learned the law sin sprang to life and he died. I think if a person does not understand an action to be sinful, it is not accounted to him as sin because he is not willfully disobeying. I think this is what Jesus means when he tells his disciples that they will not enter heaven unless they become like children--innocent. Anyone who has children understands the profoundness of this verse--children lie and do things wrong all the time, but they are considered innocent because they are not able to comprehend that their actions are rebellion against a transcendent law.
2. Even if it is possible to sin without knowing it, it's still non sequitur that a sinless life is absolutely impossible. Even if is possible to sin without willful disobedience, it is still conceivable that a person should do the right thing in every situation. It isn't likely, but it is possible.
But doesn't this eliminate our need for Christ? If we could live sinlessly, doesn't that mean he didn't need to die? This is the question that I always run into in this discussion. But the truth is, I don't understand why people jump to that conclusion. Let me illustrate with an analogy.
Let's say that I can't swim, but I am invited to a party which will be held on big yacht floating in the middle of a very deep lake. Now, let's say that at one point, someone asks me if I would like to swim in the lake. I know what I should do--I should stay on the boat and put on an extra life vest. But let's say that I choose to jump in the water and immediately begin drowning. Now, I had several choices to avoid my immanent death. I could have decided not to attend the party. I could have made sure to wear a life vest. I could have chosen not to jump in the water. In all choices, I was free--and I made the wrong choice each time. Now, does the fact that I chose the wrong thing mean that I don't need a lifeguard to save me? Quite the opposite--the fact that I freely chose to do something so deadly is exactly why I need a savior!
I think the problem with the argument is that we're assuming that our need for Christ's sacrifice precedes our actual sin. But did Adam and Eve need a savior before they chose to disobey? They lived a sinless life, until they decided to rebel against what God had told them. After this, they needed a savior. Unless they were predetermined to sin, which some people do believe, they could have chosen to do the right thing--in which case, Jesus' death would not have been necessary for them.
In my opinion, the fact that it is possible for me not to sin does not eliminate my need for Christ. Quite the opposite--it emphasizes it. The fact that I could have chosen not to sin makes Christ's sacrifice all the more loving and, well, unfair! We believe that he willingly died for people who are guilty of willing disobedience--they could have chosen to live sinlessly, but they didn't. At the heart of the profoundness of Christ's sacrifice is the fact that we don't deserve it! It is our freedom in the choice to sin that makes Christ's sacrifice so much more profound.
On the other hand, if I can't help but sin then it really isn't my fault that I do, and it is questionable that we need someone to take a punishment that we don't really deserve.
One last note... We are unable to save ourselves--but only after we sin! Before we sin, we don't need a savior. This is why children are innocent.
I am very happy to take comments about this post. What I'm trying to do right now is find a way to come to grips with my own inadequacies and faults as a man and a Christian. I'm getting counseling right now and my counselor and I tend to bump heads about this a lot--he's trying to convince me to not be so hard on myself and others, but I'm stuck on the fact that I must be able to choose to do the right thing from one moment to the next. This is the theology I believe, but in practice it's a hard one. I'm trying to come to grips with self-forgiveness. Any help?
18 comments:
Finally a post that we both agree on. Can you believe it?
You asked for help on self forgivness. I have two books that I am starting to tear into later this week. From their backs, they may be helpfull for you as well. One is by Leroy T. Howe and is called Guilt: Helping God's People Find Healing and Forgiveness. The other is by John Patton, and is called Is Human Forgiveness Possible?
I will think about this and perhaps respond with more later.
Take care my friend.
Hey! I knew it would happen sooner or later! I'll look up these books.
Jason,
I have some random thoughts that may or may not address what you are talking about and are not meant as an answer so much as a parallel discussion
First the issue of the personal nature of your/our struggle: In Romans - and particularly in Rom. 7 Paul pictures a struggle with sin and he equates this stuggle with an encounter with the law. Romans 7 pictures the personal bind that we enter into as law keepers - those in pursuit of perfection in regard to the law - the harder you struggle the more intense the hold the law has upon you. This is the un--identity - the place or manner in which identity is disolved - which the Bible calls the law of sin and death. The solution to this struggle is release from the law - but what does that mean?
A reorientation in our identity: self-identity is no longer oriented to the measure of the law - how I am doing as measured by the number of times I sin - but is to be found in our new center of identity - the person and work of Christ. Sin in this understanding does not have much to do with the particular instances of transgression but with a reorientation. Sin is a system or orientation that binds us to the law - salvation is an orientation that frees us from the various modes this "legalistic" orientation might take.
This all sounds fairly standard - so let me tranlate it into different terminology and create some different problems in the process: Sin and evil, in an Augustinian sense - and a biblical sense? - amounts to nothing other than the dissolution of self. (The question arises as to the human will: Augaustine said we cannot will evil as the will can only will the good - there is no will there to will if it is evil that is willed. In regards to your discussion this sounds like it lets us off the hook. In this I think Auguastine was wrong.) Salvation amounts to finding our self or to discovering the ground of Being as oppossed to the Unground of Nothingness. The sinner isn't made by keeping the law - he is undone through his orientation to the law - no matter how well he keeps it. When we fall short of "being in Christ" there is no being to be found outside of Christ.
Whence the will to will evil. Isn't this the pure drive of the law that Paul describes as sin in Romans 7. Sin within me is not me - but it is the pure drive of the will as bound by the law. There is no "me" in the law but only this pure drive of the will. Is this "free will"? At one level it is obviously a will that is bound - but in defending free will no one is saying the will does not become bound up with the law. Isn't it the original choice of the law that is free? Don't we mean that our choice of Christ is free? But is anyone claiming that our will is left untainted by the choices we make? The choice is not, then, one between Pelagianism or Calvinism - you left out Semi-Pelagianism - which is actually the place from which Augustine began before he encountered Pelagius.
Paul
Good comments. I did leave out semi-Pelagianism, but only because I am arguing for the basic freedom not to sin. I think even the person who is lost in sin--the addict--has the ability to choose not to continue. The problem is really not his will, but his desire.
Your point that the will is not left untainted by the choices we make is exactly what I think Paul is discussing in Romans 7. We are tainted by sin--we don't understand our desires. Why do I choose so often to sin when I know what it does to me? The problem is we WANT to sin! We want to, so we often choose to. But we could choose not to. And as soon as we have chosen to sin, it becomes harder to want to be free of it.
The will is very much influenced by everything around it. Yet it is not bound completely to anything. The disparity between sin and the law is a trap from which Jesus frees us. It is a trap in which we lose ourselves, everything that we are created to be. But I think we are only caught there by our own free choice to choose sin. Once we have, the law really becomes relevant to us, but inattainable.
I hope my response is relevant to your discussion and that I am not missing the point!
Points of discussion:
Can one distinguish fallen desire and will?
Is sin in some way the complete fusion of these two categories?
Could we describe this fusion (in Augustinian fashion) as a will fallen in on itself; What does the will will when it does not will the good? Or what does desire ultimately desire? Isnt the answer in both cases the will simply wills itself - and desire ultimately aims at itself? In willing to will or desiring to desire ( the same thing?) there is an inherent deception in that will and desire as an entity unto themselves - turned on them selves - are self destructive. What is sought is an infinite willing or an infinite desiriing (unending) and what is produced is death. This is not total depravity as the deceiver and the deceived are the same person - self-deception - but the bind this creates describes a will that has incapacitated itself in regard to choosing the good.
Yes, I think we do distinguish between fallen desire and will. You can will something even if you don't desire to do it. Will is that capacity to make yourself do something. Your will (will-power) and desire can be in two different directions.
But I think Augustine is wrong in that even a person who is lost in sin can choose to do good. I think of the men who ran into the buildings to save people on 9/11. Some of these are believers, some not. But they chose something selflessly--they willed to do it even though the did not want to. You can will to do good, even when your desire is fallen.
Now, a person can come to that Romans 1 point where they are incapable of doing good, but I don't think this happens very often. More on that later.
that's alot of good stuff to process now that i am done with Romans. i have been preaching through james and this sunday am going to preach on 1:13-18, it says:
When tempted, no one should say God is tempting me, because God cannot be tempted by evil nor does he tempt everyone, but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed (a seduction metaphor of a whore/hunting fishing metaphor). Then after desire has been conceived, it gives brith to sin, and sin when it is full grown (niv not so good here, but its like a baby that comes to full term) it gives birth to death (i picture of still birth).
He then juxtaposes that with this thought:
Don't be deceived my dear brothers, every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the father of lights who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us brith (again we see a brith metaphor, but we see a much happier outcome then a still brith) through the word of truth so that we might be the firstfruits of all he created.
While men (disciples or not) can do good, we must see its source. And while our desire may run rampant (again, christian or not) we must recognize its end. but in this struggle that takes place, i take comfort (as a world class sinner, yet not a slave to sin) from Pauls words in Romans, that comforts us that "were there is sin, grace abounds!" when sinning this must not become an excuse, or a plan to sin, but when ou are dealing with the consequences, it can allow us the much needed grace to pick up and move on.
i think we do a great harm and disservice but avoding the topic of God grace in church, for fear that everyone is going to leave and sin the more. as pastors we talk about this fine line of grace and righteouness that we need to walk, but we overcompensate greatly to the side of righteousness, knowing its easier to shame than to encourage.
may grace abound to, in and through
In a striking way, this problem seems to arise from the confusion between weakness and sin which I found to be the fundamental problem in Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" when I read it some years ago.
We are indeed unable to do anything good of ourselves. This is clearly not a condemnation, because Jesus so described himself, being without sin and not deserving condemnation. The scriptures never suggest that our inability to do good of ourselves is the result of sin or even that it is sinful. It's not a bug but a feature; God built us that way.
That's because doing the right thing is not what we need. All need mercy, apart from having sinned, to the point that God pushes us into sin so he can have mercy upon us (Romans 11:32). To be sinless and in need of no mercy is the ambition of our unbelief, a living death that God will never agree to.
Life is what we need, and having it we will do the right thing. From Genesis 1 up, that life is found in God alone. When our flesh proves that by malfunctioning when we try to run ourselves on some other source, it's just telling us the truth, fulfilling God's word for our good.
Back in the day, God told Adam in the garden not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because, "in the day you eat of it you will die." This was not a judicial sentence and God was not threatening to kill them, because this death occurred as soon as Adam ate, before God showed up to judge the act. The death was in the act itself. They were finding in the tree the knowledge and wisdom they were looking for without receiving it from God their life, and so it was lifeless, killing them by satisfying them with non-life. Their independence killed them, quite apart from transgression, and this death was manifested in hiding from their Life when he came to them.
People want to choose right apart from God, and thereby earning his approval. They want to make the fruit of the tree work - making us wise and presentable to God so we don't need him to do it for us. That's death; it will never work.
Coming to him works, as Jesus said, and as Isaiah 1:16-18 describes in more detail.
Thanks for your comment, it's neat to see people I haven't met interacting with the blog.
Two points:
I think if you are going to say that we are unable to do anything good in ourselves, you have to explain the countless examples of people without Christ actually doing good things. How many non-Christians ran back into the towers on 9/11 to save innocent people, only to lose their lives? Though this does not earn salvation, it does seem a bit hollow to insist that they are unable to do any good at all. Many Calvinists will attempt to say that God gives people the ability to do good when he deems it necessary. This strikes me as a little too convenient. Doesn't it just make sense that people have the freedom to do what they decide to do because God created them that way?
Two: the statement that God made us without the ability to do anything good has some very difficult ramifications. Why would a good God create someone without the ability to choose to do good? Why would he call the thing he'd created "good" if it was incapable of doing good? I don't think that idea is very well thought out.
James says, "No one undergoing a trial [temptation--the words in Greek are the same] should say, 'I am being tempted by God.' For God is not tempted by evil and He Himself doesn't tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to si, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death."
I think James would certainly disagree that God leads people to sin so that he can show them mercy. It is people who sin because the want to and they decide to. But they can decide not to. That is my point.
The reason people who don't believe in God do good all the time is that his law is written in their hearts as Paul points out in Romans 2. People are made in God's image and likeness, and God's word, coming into the world, enlightens every man, as John 1 says. Agreeing with him, James points out that God gives wisdom to all men without upbraiding them, just as by the wisdom of God princes rule and nobles decree justice (Proverbs 8).
Of course God does not incite people to sin, as James points out. But he most certainly pushes people into places where their inability to do anything else is manifested, as we see several times in Abraham.
In Abraham, as with us, it was so that he might learn that the road out was the power and mercy of God and not his own choosing. When God gave the Ten Words at Sinai - words, not commandments, is more accurate - the beginning was the whole point: "I am the Lord your GOd, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves." What follows is commentary in just the same way that the rest of Genesis 1 expounds its own introduction: "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." The people hearing the Ten Words were to understand that their road out of the sins detailed in what followed was the same power that brought them out of Egypt. Because they never understood this, they never escaped from sin. Meditating on this deliverance shows us how extraordinarily stupid it is to hope that we might escape sin ourselves: some few might have escaped from Egyptian bondage on their own, as Moses fled 40 years before, but no one has escaped even from covetousness on his own since the world began. The lesson of the exodus is that there is only one road out of sin, as Zechariah the father of John the Forerunner mentioned in Luke 1. That power is the resurrection from the dead that God spent over 30 years teaching Abraham. Nothing else has ever worked for anyone, and it never will. That's God's idea so that none may boast but all may be thankful because that's really true, the way it is.
Peter,
I'm glad you're visiting the Abyss and joining in dialogue with me. I really appreciate this kind of discussion and I can tell that you're a really thoughtful kind of person. I found your blog last night and poked around a little, but didn't have time to go very deep.
In response to your comments, it strikes me that you may be trying to have it both ways. At first you concede that people can do good because God's law is on their hearts. I don't think you need to justify their ability to do good, I think freedom is sufficient to explain that, but your answer is not bad either, from your perspective.
However, later you say that God places people in positions in which their inability to do anything else (but sin) is manifested. How can people have the ability to do good because God's law is on their hearts, but still be in positions in which they have no choice but to sin.
And you may disagree with me, and that's ok. But it seems to me that if God puts you into a position in which you have no choice but to sin (and I don't think such a position exists), he has incited you to sin. That's why I use the James passage to prove that God doesn't do that. He doesn't want people to sin, which is why he made them with the ability not to. Why would God create Adam with no choice but to eat the fruit, and then tell him not to do it? That's like me creating a computer to follow its programming and then constantly telling it not to follow its programming.
Your last paragraph is a justification about why God would do such things. I do agree with one part of your response: "how extraordinarily stupid it is to hope that we might escape sin ourselves..." I think it is true that we cannot save ourselves from sin. Once we have sinned, we need a savior because no matter what we have done, we cannot overcome what we have done in sinning. But I think freedom is necessary to explain the heinousness of sin. My sin condemns me because it is my own--the result of my free choice to rebel against God. If my sin is the result of my inability not to sin, it really isn't that bad. If I'm only doing it because God created me in such a way that I cannot help but do it (for instance, I can hardly be blamed for breathing--if I stop, I just pass out and start breating again!) and then places me in situations where I have no choice but to do it--how can I really be blamed for it?
I think you and I will probably just not agree on this, and that's ok. I do think your view has an inherent weakness. I find that Augustinian / Calvinistic viewpoints overemphasize the transcendence of God to the point of eliminating human freedom--which turns God into a strange creator who loves his creation, but causes it to sin and condemn itself. I just don't think we have to look at God in those terms. I do think Calvinism, as a system, has some benefits. But I just don't care for it as a whole. To me, open theism is closer to a scriptural understanding of God and presents him as someone who truly loves and moves with people.
Thanks for dialoguing with me on this. I look forward to hearing from you more often. Let me know if it would be ok to add a link to your blog.
Jason
By all means link to my blog; it's meant to be read and argued with.
It doesn't follow that God incites you to sin by putting you in a position where you can do nothing else because there is something else - as it is written, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be rescued." Satan's purpose for sin is obvious, but what counts is God's purpose for sin in our lives, and that is to make us despair of our own independent resources and the trees of knowledge we hope in and to find our life in him where it is.
I don't think this should be too difficult. It's commonplace that the whores and tax farmers of the world are in better shape than those that are virtuous in themselves; you don't have to read it in the gospels. There's no one meaner and more full of death thasn a virtuous person who has not run aground on his own depravity, so that God should push us into that situation should amaze no one.
The heinousness of sin doesn't arise from our ability not to do it, since we're perfectly able not to do various stupid things, like not checking our oil, and while stupid, it's not especially heinous. Its heinousness arises from the abhorrence of light that it grows in as we read in John 3:19-22. It's the hatred of truth that Paul wrote of in 2 Thessalonians 2.
It is because this is written in our hearts that we are accountable, and also why we routinely do good. This quality in ourselves and others tells us many things, among them that doing well must rest on our ontology, who and what we are, not our choice. Choices are a fruit, a consequence of the truth or lie that we believe, as Jesus pointed out.
It's an odd notion that we can have freedom apart from God. We don't even have existence apart from him. Freedom only happens when we have light from God, just as a free election is not possible, even though you can vote for whomever you please, if you are completely deprived of any information about the parties and their candidates.
I’ll definitely link you up. It appears, though, that we have some very fundamental differences in our thinking.
Your statement is that it doesn’t follow that God incites you to sin by putting you in a position where you can do nothing else. I’m not sure how anything else follows. If I don’t have freedom to choose not to sin and have been created that way by God and he has placed me in a position in which I have no choice but to sin, whether he has placed his law on my heart or not is irrelevant. I don’t have a choice in the matter, how is it my fault that I have sinned? I think free will is the only thing that makes sense of the whole concept of sin. If God has created us to sin and placed us in positions in which we must sin, then God is the source of that sin.
It strikes me that I’m arguing with you (not in a negative sense, of course!) and trying to answer your points without working very hard at stating my view on the matter. I think God created us with the innate ability to follow him (Adam could have chosen not to sin), but Adam chose to sin. Since then, sin began to influence culture. We are all born sinless and able to choose good, but we all choose to sin largely because we are so influenced by sinful culture—a world in which sin exists. Then, because of our sin, we are powerless to save ourselves. But it is our own choice to sin that puts us in the position to need saving. The fundamental difference between you and me is that we both begin with different assumptions about sin and freedom. Doubtless we could go back and forth for a long time!
I’m not sure why we should think of anyone in better shape in regards to sin than anyone else. Prostitutes and tax collectors, according to the NT were only better off because they understood the depth of their sin and felt remorse, so they thought of themselves as needing help. The problem with the Pharisees was that they took refuge in their false sense of righteousness, but the truth was they were as sinful as anyone else—the Pharisees just didn’t realize it. When it came to sin, both were in the same boat—but they were so because, as James says, they wanted to sin and they chose to. Perhaps I don’t understand your point about this, but I think that it is not a valid one.
I hope you don’t think that I believe people have anything apart from God. Of course we don’t have existence without him. But he builds us with freedom the same way he builds us with eyes and brains. He gives it to us as an inherent part of who we are, and he sets us free to use it how we choose to. We don’t have freedom on our own apart from him, but we may use it apart from him. That is the entire point! He creates us and we can choose darkness or choose light. He offers light, as you state, but we can choose it or choose darkness. The point of my blog is that sin is the willful choice to choose darkness. But it is a free choice because God has created us free.
In the first place, it's fiction that people sin because they want to, most of the time. Mostly, people sin because they see nothing else to do, and indeed don't see that what they're doing is sin - but it remains sin and kilss them anyway. And that's what is wrong with it: God's problem with it is that it's death, whether you know it's wrong or not.
Jesus spoke clearly to this: Whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. There's no freedom there; you're stuck. Freedom isn't just sort of there; it proceeds from God along with his light, so that Paul wrote, "Where the spirit of the Lord is is liberty." That clearly implies that elsewhere there isn't, which Paul made explicit in 1 Corinthians 12 when he said that when we were pagans we were led astray to the dumb idols, however we were led.
I wouldn't argue with you about this except that you rightly state that your theology - that you inherently within yourself can choose to do the right thing - is a hard one. It reminds me ofwhat I heard in a topology class so long ago. A guy disproved a certain theorem by coming up with a certain case in which it was not true. But some time later the theorem was upheld by proving that this case could never happen.
The "freedom" you posit to do the right thing has never been seen in any human being from the beginning of the world. Even Jesus stated that apart from his Father he could do nothing. Paul discovered that in his flesh there dwelt no good thing, and that's been the practical experience of everyone else too.
Now this is not because our flesh is all kinds of evil, as some distorted teaching has it. It is good that God has designed it that way, because it faithfully leads us to look up to our life.
Some years back when I was living in South Norwalk, Connecticut, I looked out the window on a cold drizzly late January morning. It was bleak. It didn't even have the austere beauty of serious northern cold; it was just southern New England late winter slop, drizzle on brown slush. I remembered how the heavens declare the glory of God and so forth, and I asked the Lord how this desolation evidenced his glory. Instantly I heard back, "It isn't in me." That's what this desolation was saying, and it's perfect truth.
When moth and rust corrupt and thieves break in and steal, it is not due to fallenness. It's the creation declaring, "Look up!" as Jesus pointed out. If in the same way you get this message from your frailty, instead of kicking against it, you will find the self-forgiveness issue fading away.
As much as I love theological discussion and debate, there is a point when it becomes pointless--and I think we may be approaching it. Not because we don't both have well-thought-out ideas, but because neither of us stands to change the other one's mind about this issue. My point earlier was that we both begin with different ideas about God's will and human freedom. Those starting points are as disparate as night and day. I think we may be in a position where we will simply have to agree to disagree.
That having been said, I think if you state that it is fiction that our desire is the root of our sin you have to do something with the James 1:14-15 passage I keep referring to: "But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death." It cannot be "fiction" that we are tempted to sin or that we sin because we choose it. James' statement is categorical.
Paul does speak of slavery to sin in Romans. But you are taking the analogy too far. Freedom in a theological/philosophical sense is different from freedom in a practical sense. A slave's freedom is taken from him in a practical sense--he is "forced" to work or serve. But he can still choose not to--he may be forced to deal with painful consequences, but in a philosophical/theological sense, he is still free.
The sense that slavery is used as an analogy for sin is that when people choose to sin, sin eventually becomes like a "master" over them. On a day to day basis, they still have the daily option to choose not to sin. But overall, they live as slaves, serving their sins and living with the inevitable consequences. They cannot free themselves from the consequences, though they may choose to stop sinning. Jesus breaks those chains.
Your statement that the "freedom" I posit has never been seen in any human being ever, is just not a defendable statement. You and I will both look at the same person and see different things. I look at the BTK killer and see a guy who chose to do some awful things. Therefore, I see a person who is free. You see someone who could choose no other (presumably because God created him that way and put him in a position to murder people--I think your position is actually much harder than mine). The point is, just because you don't see freedom doesn't mean it isn't there. I hope you realize that many, many theologians like me are doing free-will theology. I realize that there are many who are Augustinian like yourself. But you can't defend a statement like "freedom has never been observed." It's possible that you are observing freedom, but just explaining it some other way.
I appreciate your concern about my struggle. You should know that what I'm dealing with is a psychological desire for perfection, which my counselor has been helping me with. I can see that it traces back all the way to events in my childhood. But I can tell you with certainty that I am not interested in changing my view of God to aid in my existential struggle! Right or wrong, I hold this view because it seems to me to be the right one just as I believe you hold your view because it seems to be the right one to you. If I did change, my struggle would not disappear but would simply shift to a struggle of how to harmonize God's mercy and love with the notion that he predestined every evil thing that has ever happened. One view places my sin directly on my shoulders, the other places it on God's shoulders. It sounds as if you are saying, "come to this view and you will be able to forgive yourself," and no doubt you are right--because according to you I can't choose anything else. But if I take your view, I just shift from not being able to forgive myself, to not being able to forgive God. No thanks!
Of course our evil desires give rise to sin, but that's not why we sin. Jesus had those same evil desires, or he would not have been tempted at every point as we are, and he didn't sin, thus condemning sin in the flesh, as it is written, and eliminating those evil desires as the real cause of the trouble. They're an opportunistic infection, only a problem when something else is wrong, like cytomegalovirus.
My point about freedom, which you are wholly missing, is that it doesn't mean anything if you can see no other way - and outside of a relationship with God there is indeed no other way. People are always able to make choices, but when we're in darkness life isn't on the menu. Choices do not equal freedom if all choices are futile.
An instance illustrating this in my own life is a day when I was 4 years old that my mother was giving me the silent treatment, and I had no idea why. Not being in relationship with God I could not avoid sinning. I could choose compliance and recognize that she was right because she was mighty and I was helpless. I could choose defiance and find ways to avenge myself. There was a wide variety of choices, but the only one that was sinless was to rely on God, pour out my trouble to him, and find consolation in him - and that was not available because it was unknown to me.
That's what bondage to sin is. You can choose all sorts of things, but lacking the relationship and wisdom of God, there is no right choice for such a 4-year-old.
The salvation of God is light to those who sit in darkness, so that a free choice not to sin becomes practically possible. Apart from that salvation, it is not practically possible. You've seen lots of freedom to choose, and so have I. But neither of us has seen anyone, including ourselves, free to choose freedom from sin except when God graciously enables it.
I don't see anything in this that causes God to need to be forgiven. It's true that God is sovereign, but it's also true that God has chosen sovereignly to create a universe in which he doesn't get his own way, as we might expect in light of 1 Corinthians 13:6. Even people make such a choice when they decide to have kids.
So God's sovereignty is unimpaired even if his will is resisted? When we get that straight, we start to see how we can reign in life without having to control people, including ourselves. There are very practical issues of life here.
I wonder why it has never occurred to you that framing the issue in terms of Augustinian and Pelagian theology might not make sense. The biblical writers just didn't see the intellectual landscape that way, and to some extent Eastern Orthodoxy never has to this day. How do you know there is any way to get it right within the theological framework of western Christianity, when we consider that Jesus and the apostles did not operate within it, and neither did the prophets before them?
Peter,
Thanks for all your comments on this issue. However, I'm starting to feel like the discussion is becoming more abrasive than I like. The bottom line, as I said in my last comment, is that we are starting with two different assumptions. Your assumption is that we do not have freedom, mine is that we do. We are drawing our conclusions from scripture based on those assumptions. At this rate neither of us will make any headway with the other because we do not begin with the same assumption.
My friend, I agree that Paul didn't know any more about Pelagius than he did Augustine. But that's irrelevant. We do. So we've got to try to understand what the Bible is saying in light of what people like Pelagius and Augustine have said. We may decide they were totally wrong, but it makes no sense to ignore what they have said.
I hope it doesn't offend you for me to say this, but I simply don't see the point in continuing this discussion. I may be misreading, but a couple of things you said in your comment looked like you were agitated. You definitely said you don't feel like I'm getting your point. I AM getting your point, it's just that I think you're wrong. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about this kind of stuff, and have even held your view. I'm willing to accept that we disagree and love you just the same. Hopefully, you're willing to do that for me, too.
I've written about a lot of other stuff on the Abyss. I'd be happy to discuss some of these other ideas with you. I just want to make sure we can keep the discussions as calm as possible. I love theological discussion, but I don't like when it generates more heat than light. As for this discussion, since it is going nowhere, I probably won't respond to it any more. I hope you understand!
Post a Comment