Is Man Totally Depraved?
Yes, in Romans 3:10-11 for example
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
And Calvin in the Institutes, Book II, Chapter I, §8 says:
"Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt.Next comes the other point, viz., that this perversity in us never ceases, but constantly produces new fruits, in other words, those works of the flesh which we formerly described; just as a lighted furnace sends forth sparks and flames, or a fountain without ceasing pours out water. Hence, those who have defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle."
There can be no doubt that in Christianity man is evil through and through and is totally depraved, without hope to save himself.
The baseline teaching of Christianity, at least most of it, is that mankind is simul peccator et iustus, both sinner and justified at the same time and capable of both. While Christianity seems to hold with some hereditary taint, it also holds people responsible for their actions.
Monastic theology was an interesting wrinkle. While thoroughly Christian, it focuses on the humanity of Jesus with the optimistic view that humans can become more godlike. The Orthodox call it theosis, of course, but Western monasticism holds much the same. This may be a result of its roots in John Cassian, who was a monk from Egypt who formed a religious order that gave rise eventually to the Benedictines. Cassian's own conferences had a really optimistic view of mankind (and womankind), saying that God's desire to save everyone is enormously powerful. His conference on the subject is considered a refutation of Augustine's predestinarian views -- views that Calvin swallowed whole. Even Augustine reconsidered them late in life but Calvin didn't.
Judaism holds that we are capable of doing evil and good, that both tendencies exist within us, and that we need to listen to our "better angels." I mention this not to make Judaism look good but as a way of getting into the part the monastic rule plays in that theosis/reformation of manners. The monastic rule governs every part of the monk's day, how he prays, when he prays, what he eats, how he relates to his brother monks (translate this into female for convents and nuns). The monastic rule makes the 613 mitzvot look like whoopie but it serves the same purpose. It is not a way to keep the monk/nun from sinning but rather a way of helping him/her be good the way the order feels God intends.
Much of Christian theology stresses our sinful nature, that we were conceived in iniquity, born in sin, and all we like sheep have gone astray and will continue to do so. But I wonder if this is a case of taking something that is explicitly taught in the Bible-- that all have sinned-- and making into something that isn't taught-- that there is nothing good about us-- that we are utterly evil and corrupt. Consider, for example, some of the images in the Bible, such as the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 and that we are children of a King and ambassadors of His Kingdom. So many Christians in particular lack a sense of self-worth to the point of joylessness and depression. It is as if they have over internalized to their harm the hymn that God saves "a wretch like me." My thoughts when I hear "Amazing Grace" is that while I've done bad things in my life, I'm far from wretched.
I recently read a book by Roy Robertson, who headed the Navigators, a missionary organization in Asia. His book Legacy of Discipleship describes some of the implications and my own reservations about this theory of man's total depravity.
"Even in the traditions of the Christian religion we find someone else to blame-- at least temporarily. We can place the blame squarely on Adam and Eve, our first parents. Doesn't Romans 5:12 say because of their sin death passed upon all men, for all have sinned?
"Augustine and other Catholic fathers carried this even further. The Catholic Church dogmatically taught that because of Adam's sin, man not only received the condemnation of death but he was fundamentaly changed do that he became utterly depraved, physically and morally. The implications are devastating.
"If man is toitally depraved morally, he has no capacity to choose to do good. So man has inherited both a body and a will that is corrupt. He has no choice but to do evil. If man has no choice, then he is not responsible. Who then is responsible? We blame God for making us like we are, and we conclude we have an unjust God! He punishes us for that we cannot help. We have reached a position that contradicts many clear passages of the World of God.
"Coupled with Augustine's teaching of inherited total depravity, which locked man in a terrible state of helplessness, was his view on predestination which reinforced the helpless feeling that there was no way of escape. He taught that "God had a fixed number of those eho would be saved, and those utterly without any chance for salvation. Nothing could be done to alter that number." How terribly depressing, not even a ray of hope! We are damned and nothing can be done to change it. We must cast ourselves on the mercy of the clergy of the church who hold they keys to heaven.
"But wait, the words of Jesus Christ ring like heavenly music in the dark dungeon of despair. "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10) "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotton Son , that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)
I have to agree that Robertson's position is more aligned to how I read the Bible, that we are not totally depraved, that no matter what you are or who you are, we matter to God, and that the choice is in our hands whether or not we choose redemption. I see no evidence from the Bible to support the claim that the fall impaired man's will. To the contrary, according to Genesis 3:22, Adam and Eve's act of disobedience enhanced our will by allowing us to recognize moral differences, "to know good and evil".
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq123.html
Christians, it seems to me, start from a baseline that we are all sinners, that we all start in the classroom of life with a "F", whereas the Jewish religion presupposes God's love for us, that we start with an "A". Simplistically, Christians are born again into redemption whereas Jews maintain their covenant with God by keeping the law. It is as if Christians transcend that "F" through conversion while devout Jews maintain that "A" by following the Talmud.
My view is that one's journey of faith starts out neutrally, at a "C" as it were, and it is both a conscious choice (say, of being born again or of adhearing to your Jewish heritage) and a life's journey having to do with personal ethics and other-awareness.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
And Calvin in the Institutes, Book II, Chapter I, §8 says:
"Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt.Next comes the other point, viz., that this perversity in us never ceases, but constantly produces new fruits, in other words, those works of the flesh which we formerly described; just as a lighted furnace sends forth sparks and flames, or a fountain without ceasing pours out water. Hence, those who have defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle."
There can be no doubt that in Christianity man is evil through and through and is totally depraved, without hope to save himself.
The baseline teaching of Christianity, at least most of it, is that mankind is simul peccator et iustus, both sinner and justified at the same time and capable of both. While Christianity seems to hold with some hereditary taint, it also holds people responsible for their actions.
Monastic theology was an interesting wrinkle. While thoroughly Christian, it focuses on the humanity of Jesus with the optimistic view that humans can become more godlike. The Orthodox call it theosis, of course, but Western monasticism holds much the same. This may be a result of its roots in John Cassian, who was a monk from Egypt who formed a religious order that gave rise eventually to the Benedictines. Cassian's own conferences had a really optimistic view of mankind (and womankind), saying that God's desire to save everyone is enormously powerful. His conference on the subject is considered a refutation of Augustine's predestinarian views -- views that Calvin swallowed whole. Even Augustine reconsidered them late in life but Calvin didn't.
Judaism holds that we are capable of doing evil and good, that both tendencies exist within us, and that we need to listen to our "better angels." I mention this not to make Judaism look good but as a way of getting into the part the monastic rule plays in that theosis/reformation of manners. The monastic rule governs every part of the monk's day, how he prays, when he prays, what he eats, how he relates to his brother monks (translate this into female for convents and nuns). The monastic rule makes the 613 mitzvot look like whoopie but it serves the same purpose. It is not a way to keep the monk/nun from sinning but rather a way of helping him/her be good the way the order feels God intends.
Much of Christian theology stresses our sinful nature, that we were conceived in iniquity, born in sin, and all we like sheep have gone astray and will continue to do so. But I wonder if this is a case of taking something that is explicitly taught in the Bible-- that all have sinned-- and making into something that isn't taught-- that there is nothing good about us-- that we are utterly evil and corrupt. Consider, for example, some of the images in the Bible, such as the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 and that we are children of a King and ambassadors of His Kingdom. So many Christians in particular lack a sense of self-worth to the point of joylessness and depression. It is as if they have over internalized to their harm the hymn that God saves "a wretch like me." My thoughts when I hear "Amazing Grace" is that while I've done bad things in my life, I'm far from wretched.
I recently read a book by Roy Robertson, who headed the Navigators, a missionary organization in Asia. His book Legacy of Discipleship describes some of the implications and my own reservations about this theory of man's total depravity.
"Even in the traditions of the Christian religion we find someone else to blame-- at least temporarily. We can place the blame squarely on Adam and Eve, our first parents. Doesn't Romans 5:12 say because of their sin death passed upon all men, for all have sinned?
"Augustine and other Catholic fathers carried this even further. The Catholic Church dogmatically taught that because of Adam's sin, man not only received the condemnation of death but he was fundamentaly changed do that he became utterly depraved, physically and morally. The implications are devastating.
"If man is toitally depraved morally, he has no capacity to choose to do good. So man has inherited both a body and a will that is corrupt. He has no choice but to do evil. If man has no choice, then he is not responsible. Who then is responsible? We blame God for making us like we are, and we conclude we have an unjust God! He punishes us for that we cannot help. We have reached a position that contradicts many clear passages of the World of God.
"Coupled with Augustine's teaching of inherited total depravity, which locked man in a terrible state of helplessness, was his view on predestination which reinforced the helpless feeling that there was no way of escape. He taught that "God had a fixed number of those eho would be saved, and those utterly without any chance for salvation. Nothing could be done to alter that number." How terribly depressing, not even a ray of hope! We are damned and nothing can be done to change it. We must cast ourselves on the mercy of the clergy of the church who hold they keys to heaven.
"But wait, the words of Jesus Christ ring like heavenly music in the dark dungeon of despair. "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10) "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotton Son , that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)
I have to agree that Robertson's position is more aligned to how I read the Bible, that we are not totally depraved, that no matter what you are or who you are, we matter to God, and that the choice is in our hands whether or not we choose redemption. I see no evidence from the Bible to support the claim that the fall impaired man's will. To the contrary, according to Genesis 3:22, Adam and Eve's act of disobedience enhanced our will by allowing us to recognize moral differences, "to know good and evil".
That was a very interesting and thoughtful post. As an atheist I am not entitled to comment credibly on Christian theology, but that usually doesn't stop me.
You probably agree with me that as a one sentence summary of Christian theology, you can't do better than the oft-quoted Romans 5: 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
However, taking that as the baseline there are several directions in which you can proceed. If you need to justify a doctrine like predestination, as Calvin did, you want to emphasize the total depravity of man so that it does not seem unjust. If you want to justify universal salvation, you would prefer to emphasize the atonement as giving hope to all. Some might see an equal balance between them as the only way to keep people awake.
I have always thought that Buddhism is more encouraging than Christianity in the sense of leading the individual to do good. It recognizes that people start in different places with different minds and make progress at different rates, but in the end, over the very long haul all reach enlightenment. Human life is considered a precious gift that puts you closer and is therefore to be taken advantage of.
I'm not Jewish, but that has never stopped me before from talking about something I know nothing about. :) There is much we can learn from our Jewish brothers and sisters on this point.http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq123.html
Christians, it seems to me, start from a baseline that we are all sinners, that we all start in the classroom of life with a "F", whereas the Jewish religion presupposes God's love for us, that we start with an "A". Simplistically, Christians are born again into redemption whereas Jews maintain their covenant with God by keeping the law. It is as if Christians transcend that "F" through conversion while devout Jews maintain that "A" by following the Talmud.
My view is that one's journey of faith starts out neutrally, at a "C" as it were, and it is both a conscious choice (say, of being born again or of adhearing to your Jewish heritage) and a life's journey having to do with personal ethics and other-awareness.
Labels: theology
posted by My Mall and News at
3:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home