My Naive Theological Question . . .
Pelagius
Yesterday, I reported that the Southern Baptists are engaged in theological debates over the issue of free will, and I quoted a passage from "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation":
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person's sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.
We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit's drawing through the Gospel.
That raised some questions for me:
Every person purportedly inherits a sinful nature and invariably commits sinful acts, yet the free will of each person is not in any way incapacitated by this sinful nature. How do these two positions fit together, exactly? If a fallen person's free will is not incapacitated, then why couldn't the person be saved through correct moral choices? In other words, why would one need a savior?
An anonymous commentator responded:
Come on, that's not a deep theological puzzle. The world just needs to be stuctured in such a way that at certain inevitable junctions you get no morally sound option, only several sinful acts to freely choose among.
I replied:
It is [a deep theological puzzle] for me, but I'm not so "theologically sophisticated" as you are.
Readers will recall that I admitted as much in my post:
I'm not theologically sophisticated enough to know the finer points of these dogmas . . .
So, don't expect much from me in the way of answers. I have mostly questions. My questions, unfortunately, are not always clear. My anonymous commentator focused on my query as to "why . . . the person [with incapacitated free will couldn't] be saved through correct moral choices" and answered that our world confronts us with tragic choices in which we are forced to choose among various alternatives, each of which requires us to sin in some way or another. That describes the world that we live in, so even a person with a nature not inclined toward sin would be forced into tragic choices and therefore forced to sin.
Except for Jesus, of course, who did not face any tragic choices because his path through the world brought him to confront only morally sound options, such that he was not in all points tested as we are, and was therefore without sin, allowing him to fulfill his soteriological purpose in the world.
But that's a different issue, so let's drop it for now. My real question was this:
Every person purportedly inherits a sinful nature and invariably commits sinful acts, yet the free will of each person is not in any way incapacitated by this sinful nature. How do these two positions fit together, exactly?
I confused the issue with other questions. Let me put it another way. Suppose the world were structured in such a way that we didn't confront tragic choices. The Baptist statement affirms that we would sin anyway because of our sinful nature despite our perfectly free will. Hence my real question, when not conflated with other questions, is this:
How do these two positions fit together, exactly?
I don't know the answer, so I am interested in what others think.
Labels: Free Will, Sin, Soteriology, Southern Baptist Convention
posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges @ 5:11 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Consider that Paul laments that he often does the very thing he does not wish to do. I understand why Free Will is so important to many theologies but in face of the cold, hard fact that we do not possess a true and complete Free Will (as Paul recognized), perhaps our theologies are the things that must be modified rather than our perceptions of how the world really works.
I agree with Paul in that I also experience this conflict in which my baser desires have overridden what I believe to be better, but I don't think that Paul clarifies enough another inner experience, that I remain responsible because I recognize that I could have acted otherwise.
Hence, my query as to how these fit together is not entirely oppositional.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
The discussion of free will in the Christian context has nothing to do with sin or not sinning, really. The debate is on whether you retain enough free-will to decide to believe in the gospel or not. Calvinists and Arminians say no you don't. To them, God must give you the magic shot first. Semi-Pelagians say you do retain enough free-will to believe the gospel. Its not more complicated than that.
Going with what I just said about the magic shot, I will interpret the statement:
"We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned."
In other words, babies aren't born condemned to hell; you get condemned to hell when you personally commit your first sin (at the 'age of accountability' as they call it, circa 12).
"While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit's drawing through the Gospel."
In other words, although you can't live a sinless life, you can believe in Jesus without receiving the magic shot. Your response to the gospel is free not a forced response as the result of the magic shot the Calvinists call "irresistible grace."
"If a fallen person's free will is not incapacitated, then why couldn't the person be saved through correct moral choices? In other words, why would one need a savior?"
That would be full-Pelagianism instead of semi-Pelagianism. Pelagius himself was only a semi-Pelagian. Obviously the Calvinists made up the terminology. That's how Pelagius himself ended up only a semi-Pelagian.
Full-Pelagianism is basically Judaism without the ceremony and without the sacrifices. Ok, so I sinned. But I didn't commit adultery or murder or rape, etc. I only told a few little white lies, you know the small stuff. Can't I just live a good moral life and be Ok with God? Why would he send me to eternity in hell for the little nothings I've done. If I was a murderer, I'd understand the eternity in hell sentence, but I'm not. So, can't I just pray "God forgive me, I'm a sinner" like the Publican in that one Parable, and then try to do better? Why do I need a god-man to commit suicide for me and trick the Romans into crucifying him for my salvation?
BTW, Full-Pelagianism can claim Ezekiel 18 and Micah 6 for its side. See Micah 6:1-8 and pay particular attention to Micah's answer in verse 8.
I see the distinction between free to live morally perfect lives and free to accept God's grace. Thanks for noting that point.
As for the Arminians, my understanding is that they believe that everyone receives prevenient grace and thus has the free will to accept saving grace.
If you refer to one of these as "magic," then the other comes under suspicion of magic as well.
I think it best to avoid polemics and engage intellectually, without too much emotion.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
"As for the Arminians, my understanding is that they believe that everyone receives prevenient grace and thus has the free will to accept saving grace."
Yes, essentially I think that is correct. Which would make it really silly for Arminians to be upset by semi-Pelagianism because if everyone has this 'prevenient grace' what difference does it make whether they know it or not? The semi-Pelagian system describes the same reality in different words. The reality is everyone has the ability to believe. Whether that is the case because everyone always has (semi-Pelagianism) or because God already gave everyone the magic shot (Arminianism) -- who cares?
The whole debacle only matters to Calvinist or at least should only matter to Calvinists. Any Arminian getting upset over semi-Pelagian is just silly and needs to find something better to do.
I agree that no Arminian should get upset about semi-Pelagianism, but I also think that no Calvinist should either. Arguments aren't won by raising voices. Reason is best.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
My point is Arminians should have no argument against semi-Pelagianism since the two are functionally the same.
Well, then, I disagree on that point, at least in principle.
Functional equivalence does not entail that one would have no objections.
I'd have to see the positions laid out and compared to see if there were a significant difference.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Every person purportedly inherits a sinful nature and invariably commits sinful acts, yet the free will of each person is not in any way incapacitated by this sinful nature. How do these two positions fit together, exactly? If a fallen person's free will is not incapacitated, then why couldn't the person be saved through correct moral choices? In other words, why would one need a savior?
Every person purportedly inherits a sinful nature and invariably commits sinful acts, yet the free will of each person is not in any way incapacitated by this sinful nature. How do these two positions fit together, exactly?
-------
I do beg your indulgence as I am neither theologically nor philosophically trained. I am only a simple Christian who is only at her second round through the Bible, while you are very qualified on these matters, I feel rather shy here :D
I agree with your later post in modifying the question, those are indeed two different questions, but I think they may be jointily solved.
Here I operate under the assumption that we work from the entire protestant bible, both new and old testaments.
Nature, will, and act whould be treated as related but different issues. I believe it becomes clear when we define "sinlessness" as the bible does. See below.
If I may propose the most prominent and prevalent sin in our modern societies as an illustration of my prospective for your questions? Pride.
Nature:
Our sinful nature make us think ourselves more important than we are, and think ourselves wiser and lovelier than we ought.
Will:
To be less prideful
Action:
With my free will, there are infinite number of routes I can choose, the following are but two.
Will + action combo 1 (this one is very much tainted by sin nature, though not incapacitated)
I somberly assess my abilities realised that I am a prideful person, though I am still pretty darn awesome. I am determined to be less prideful. So I start with the outward acts. I contain my huberis when interacting with my peers so that they would think well of me; and to "be tolerant and kind-hearted" toward those I deem not worthy to my peers. Thus even such acts of kindness are "good actions" motivated by sinful desires and roots, thus themselves yet more sins; as sins includes sinful motivations and inner thoughts, according to the bible. For examples, Matthew 5:28 (looking upon a woman lustfully = committing adultery with her in your heart) and Exodus 20 (on covetousness as a sin). When I am very well trained in these actions, and I might even be able to convince myself that I did it for selfless reasons, rather than the reason of helping someone else see the fact that I am as awesome as I think I am. Then I deny that I need God and His Lamb, as I can earn my own salvation by being perfect. As the Bible proclaims that no one is good (in the sense of perfection, as far as I understand Roman 3) except for God, when I think I am perfect, I think I am God, thus committing both the sins of pride and idolatry. How would I get out of this loop??
Will + action combo 2. (this one is not incapacitated by sin nature BECAUSE of its God centred focus)^
Repent of my sin of pride to Christ, who is the sacrifice atoning for said sins and paid the wage I am owed, which is death. Then ask Jesus who was a high priest who can sympathise with my temptation to commit the sin of pride (He Himself was tempted with pride at the end of His 40-day fast), and to ask the Holy Spirit to empower my resistance to commit it as well as to convict me to repentance when I inevitably commit it again. (Got this series from from the letters and Hebrews).
^ and as far as I understand from passages like "no one seeks God" in psalms, it probably requires the mysterious process known as regeneration.
----
It all boils down to this: do you know anyone, or can imagine anyone, except for God, who is sinless? I.e. Someone who can always be perfect in their thoughts, words, and actions? This person would therefore never, between the time of conception and death, in words, thoughts, nor deed, have: lied, complained (it is a sin, ask the Isearlites strucked down, and even in thoughts!), been malicious, been unforgiving, been drunk, eaten too much, assessed oneself too highly, accessed oneself too lowly, not prayed enough, taken credit for things that God had given them, failed to give God enough glory.
Even if one is able to do this, and is not submissive to God the Lamb and God the Holy Spiritual*, we commit the sin of idolatry and rebellion against God the Father!
* though mutually exclusive with quite a few things listed under sinlessness.
Morality without faith in the Son does not lead to salvation, as it is God's game we are all playing, so it is God's rules we must tread if we want to play in His house. And His rule says be perfect, and we cannot, even with free will, be perfect enough for His perfect house. So we must accept the perfection / righteousness imputed to us through the life, death, resurrection of the Son. And He is handing them out like candy for those who love him. Take it!
---
Hope I did not bore you too much with my layman theology :D
Yours,
Joey E.
Sigh, my apologies for the typos, I wrote this on a mobile device :(
Joey E.
Joey E., thanks for the comments. Let me focus on the two combos:
Will + action combo 1 (this one is very much tainted by sin nature, though not incapacitated)
Will + action combo 2. (this one is not incapacitated by sin nature BECAUSE of its God centred focus)
In neither, you hold, is the will incapacitated, and you offer a reason for the second case not being incapacitated, but not for the first.
One problem might be that the will could be grounded in human nature and thus always to some degree be motivated by sin, whether one is trying to act morally (combo 1) or turning to Christ for forgiveness (combo 2).
I don't know that partially sinful motivation implies incapacitation of the will, but it would at least entail mixed motives.
I still need some clear way of thinking this issue through.
Thanks for thinking through some of the issues.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
If I may add, then, if free will were in fact incapacitated by the sin nature, we would be much more sinful than we currently are, as the conscience would no longer function given that assumption. Back to combo one, the desire to treat people who are deemed unworthy to be one's peer kindly would not have been present, instead, it would be the desire to eradicate them or to offend them so that they would cease to be in one's presence.
At that point, we would be moving the debate to the one which concerns the validity between "total depravity" vs that of "utter depravity".
Yours,
Joey E.
I think we choose based on a mix of good and bad motives -- at times more of one, at times more of the other -- but my experience is that I could always have chosen other than I did, and while no proof of free will, I continue to think that I have it.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I agree entirely. Did I misunderstand? I thought that the original question was on the compatibility between the inevitability of sin due to sin nature despite of free will, and whether this mean that free will is incapacitated by sin nature, this means is not truly free. (Just checking because English is my third language and I am afraid to waste your time if I had misunderstood, as I enjoy and respect your work)
I agree with you that we have free will (or at least if I don't, God had created me in a way that I think so, but that is way too deep for simple o' me!). However, I think that this free will is tugged both by the negative (sin nature, the flesh, and the world) and the good (imago dei, conscience, and for the elected, the Holy Spirit). Moreover, I understand from the Bible that God sometimes overwrites our free will for His fatherly love.
As a child is given a monetary allowance by a loving father, we are given free will (or the illusion there of). The child is freed to save or spent on whatever it desires. He might be tempted into buying sinful items (e.g. an overweighted child in this world's flood of unhealthy snacks), or it might buy good items (such as a pair of shoes for a classmate in financial need) for selfless motives, or for selfish one. He could still choose, but if it wasn't for the good (and all good things are from God the Father), i.e. if we were utterly depraved, the child would never spend its allowance on the nly sinkess combination: non-sinful items for non-sinful motives.
Moreover, should the child's father learnt that the child is saving up money to purchase, say, a firearm, the father is in perfect right to overwrite the child's free will out of love for the child and the rest of the family.
Now on this note, I do not think that sin nature, the world, the flesh, Satan, or daemons have such power over us (except on those who have given themselves over to them through daemonic practices, knowingly or unknowingly).
Yours,
Joey E.
I think that my original questions were not very clear, but I think that you understood well enough.
I still don't see how free will fits with inevitable sin, but I probably need to read more on Arminian thought to see how this issue is resolved.
I am impressed that your third language is English! What are your second and first?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
That is very flattering :D I speak Cantonese and can read/speak in Mandarin/Chinese, in some ways they are dialects, in their mutual unintelligibility they are like languages, and we're taught as such.
Would it help if you look at it this way: though it is inevitable that we sin in our lives overall, it is not inevitable that we sim every time? Every opportunity to sin is as a crossroad, though we would inevitably make a few wrong turns at some point, we don't do so every time, nor do we have to.
Though I agree that it is a frustrating condition in the sense that we can't choose to be perfect, our loving Father had offered us a way out of it. Moreover, one of Paul's letter said tha the purpose of the law (the guideline to perfection) is so that we can see our inability to be perfect, and thus make known to us our needs for Him.
I am actually more Calvinistic in my leanings, though I do not commit myself to limited atonement. I agree with Pastor Mark Driscoll on his view on what he duped "limited unlimited atonement", the name is very amusing to me.
Yours,
Joey E.
Cantonese, Mandarin, and English. I'm guessing you're a native of Hong Kong.
I wonder if any of our motives would be purely good.
I've heard of Driscoll . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Yep, HK. :D keep me posted on your musings re this issues!
Okay. I generally return to such issues repeatedly.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Post a Comment
<< Home