I just finished the last five pages of the City of God (Hurray!!!) and came across Augustine's answer to a philosophical question that has always puzzled and intrigued me. If there will be no sin in heaven, and no possibility of sinning and rebelling against God as Lucifer and the demons did, and as the first humans did in Eden, how could there possibly be free will in the New Jerusalem? Here's how Augustine navigates this issue:
"Also [in the City of God] they will then no longer be able to take delight in sin. This does not mean, however, that they will have no free will. On the contrary, it will be all the more free, because set free from delight in sinning to take a constant delight in not sinning. For when man was created righteous, the first freedom of will that he was given consisted in an ability not to sin [posse non peccare] but also in an ability to sin [posse peccare]. But this last freedom of will will be greater, in that it will consist in not being able to sin [non posse peccare]. This, however, will not be a natural possibility, but a gift from God. For it is one thing to be God, and another to be a partaker of God: God is by nature unable too sin; but he who partakes of God's nature receives the impossibility of sinning only as a gift from God. Moreover, in the divine gift of free will there was to be observed a gradation such that man should first receive a free will by which he was able not to sin, and finally a free will by which he was not able to sin: the former being given to man in a state of probation, and the latter to him in a state of reward. But because human nature sinned when it had the power to sin, it is redeemed by a more abundant gift of grace so that it may be led to that state of freedom in which it cannot sin." (XXII. 30)
Augustine's answer here about human freedom in the Eschaton solves another tricky issue related to Adam's Fall in the Garden. If God has foreordained the future such that Adam's decent into sin is an integral part of His eternal decree, how is God not the author of sin?? In a real sense this is the big, uncomfortable question that makes most Calvinists squirm when pressed to give an answer. Augustine's answer here is that Adam in the Garden had the ability not to sin [posse non peccare] which entails full freedom of the will, but for some reason unknown to us, God in his sovereignty chose to withhold his grace from Adam. (a passive, rather than an active response on God's part) According to Augustine's logic, the restored order in the Eschaton will be even better than the Garden of Eden, because at that time God will extend grace to all of the elect so that they will not be able to sin [non posse peccare]. Augustine therefore shifts the issue from any blasphemous notion we may have of a defect in the human will placed there by God, to the giving/ withholding of a divine "gift" of grace which guarantees that the will chooses what is Good. Since God is under no obligation to give grace to even a single person (grace by definition is 'unmerited favour'), withholding this gift from Adam even prior to the first sin does not implicate God in that first terrible act of rebellion. Adam used his own free will to rebel against God, and God, acting in accordance with His eternal decree, did not prevent Adam from sinning even though He could have done so. Quite an ingenious solution to a very difficult theological problem!
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Puritan Pastoral Theology 101 (Part I)
As I prepare to make a transition this April from Student Ministry in a parachurch setting to Pastoral Ministry in a local church setting, I picked up a copy of Richard Baxter's classic work on Pastoral Theology entitled The Reformed Pastor which I've had good intentions to read since I first got hooked on the English Puritans in Seminary.
Richard Baxter was one of the foremost Puritan pastors of the seventeenth-century who was a friend and associate of Thomas Manton - the subject of my MA research at McGill. Both Manton and Baxter belonged to the non-separatist Presbyterian party within the Church of England and were forcibly ejected from their pastorates as a result of the 1662 Act of Uniformity for their refusal to conform to the Book of Common Prayer shortly after the Stuart monarchy was restored under Charles II. As a pastor, Baxter was second to none and wrote The Reformed Pastor to train and equip young men preparing for the ministry. By 'Reformed', Baxter is not referring to the Calvinistic Doctrines of Grace, but to the need for pastors to be renewed or 'reformed' in their pastoral practice. As I work through this book in the coming weeks, I will share some of Baxter's pastoral wisdom. Citations are from the Banner of Truth paperback edition.The Pastor's Duty to Oversee His Own Spiritual Health
Before a pastor can properly tend God's flock, he must take care of his own spiritual wellbeing: "We have the same sins to mortify, and the same graces to be quickedned and strengthened, as our people have: we have greater works to do that they have, and greater difficulties to overcome, and therefore we have need to be warned and awakened, if not to be instructed, as well as they." (51)
The first duty of the reformed pastor, therefore, is to "see that the work of saving grace be thoroughly wrought in your own souls." (53) Baxter warns that God does not save clergy because of their vocation or gifts and urges pastors not to be complacent in making their own calling and election sure before they climb into the pulpit to urge others to renounce sin and to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord: "God never saved any man for being a preacher, nor because he was an able preacher; but because he was a justified, sanctified man, and consequently faithful in his Master's work.... It is a fearful thing to be an unsanctified professor, but much more to be an unsanctified preacher. Doth it not make you tremble when you open the Bible, lest you shouls there read the sentence of your own condemnation? When you pen your sermons, little do you think that you are drawing up indictments against your own souls! When you are arguing against sin, that you are aggravating your own! When you proclaim to your hearers the unsearchable riches of Christ and his grace, that you are publishing your own iniquity in rejecting them, and your unhappiness in being destitute of them! What can you do in persuading men to Christ, in drawing them from the world, in urging them to a life of faith and holiness, but conscience, if it were awake, would tell you, that you speak all this to your own confusion? If you speak of hell, you speak of your own inhereitance: if you describe the joys of heaven, you describe your own misery, seeing you have no right to 'the inheritance of the saints in light.' What can you say, for the most part, but that it will be against your own souls? O miserable life! that a man should study and preach against himself, and spend his days in a course of self-condemning! A graceless, inexperienced preacher is one of the most unhappy creatures upon earth: and yet he is ordinarily very insensible of his unhappiness; for he hath so many counters that seem like the gold of saving grace, and so many splendid sotnes that resemble Christian jewels, that he is seldom troubled with the thoughs of his poverty." (54)
Not only must a pastor ensure that a saving work has been wrought in his own heart before proclaiming the gospel to others, he must also make sure that his faith remains fresh and vibrant, and that his heart remains warm with the gospel of grace: "Content not yourselves with being in a state of grace, but be also careful that your graces are kept in vigorous and lively exercise, and that you preach to yourselves teh sermons which you study, before you preach them to others...I confess I must speak it by lamentable experience, that I publishe to my flock the distempers of my own soul. When I let my heart grow cold, my preaching is cold; and when it is confused, my preaching is confused; and so I can oft observe also in the best of my hearers, that when I have grown cold in preaching, they have grown cold too." (61) The only way to keep the fire stoked, says Baxter, is for the pastor to make his prayer life the first priority in his ministry: "Above all, be much in secret prayer and mediation. Thence you must fetch the heavenly fire that must kindle your sacrifices: remember, you cannot decline and neglect your duty, to your own hurt alone; many will be losers by it as well as you. For your people's sakes, therefore, look to your hearts." (62)
The reformed pastor must always lead the flock by example: "Order your families well, if you would have them do so by theirs. Be not proud and lordly, if you would have them to be lowly. There are no virtues wherein your example will do more, at least to abate men's prejudice, than humility and meekness and self-denial." (65)
The godly pastor must excel in works of charity and benevolence and demonstrate frugality and generosity in the way he lives and stewards his financial resources: "Go to the poor, and see what they want, and show your compassion at once to their soul and body. Buy them a catechism, and other small books that are likely to do them good, and make them promise to read tehm with care and attention. Stretch your purse to teh utmost, and do all the good you can. Think not of being rich; seek not great things for yourselves or your posterity." (66)
Pastors must strive daily to root out or to 'mortify' (a good Puritan word!) sin and avoid ministering in a state of hypocrisy: "If sin be evil, why do you live in it? if it be not, why do you dissuade men from it? If it be dangerous, how dare you venture on it? if it be not, why do you tell men so? If God's threatenings be true, why do you not fear them? if they be false, why do you needlessly trouble men with them, and put them into such frights without a cause?" (68)
Finally, pastors must take steps to prepare themselves with the necessary skills for the work of the ministry which normally includes the pursuit of formal theological education as God provides the time, resources and opportunity. If formal theological education is not a viable option, the pastor should, like Charles Spurgeon, pursue his own course of independent study by immersing himself in theology and the study of the biblical languages. The Puritans placed an extemely high value on the education of their clergy as evidenced by the fact that most of the Ivy League schools in New England were founded by Congregationalist and Presbyterian Puritans for the training of the next generation of ministers (ie. Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc.). This Puritan concern for theological education persists in the Reformed tradition today as all Presbyterian pastors are required to complete an MDiv before they can complete the process of ordination. Here is what Baxter has to say about the importance of education: "O brethren! do you not shrink and tremble under the sense of all this work? Will a common measure of holy skill and ability, of prudence and other qualifications, serve for such such a task as this? I know necessity may cause the Church to tolerate the weak; but woe to us if we tolerate and indulge our own weakness! Do not reason and conscience tell you, that if you dare venture on so high a work as this, you should spare no pains to be qualified for the performance of it? It is not now and then an idle snatch or taste of studies that will serve to make an able and sound divine [puritan word for pastor/theologian] I know that laziness hath learned to allege the vanity of all our studies, and how entirely the Spirit must qualify us for, and assist us in our work; as if God commanded us the use of means, and then warranted us to neglet them...O, therefore, brethren, lose no time! Study, and pray and confer, and practise; for in these four ways your abilities must be increased." (71)
Sunday, November 27, 2011
St. Augustine's Confessions - Birthpangs of Conversion (Book VIII)
Aside from the theft of pears at the beginning of the Confessions, Book VIII is the most familiar to many people because it contains the famous narrative of Augustine's conversion in the Milan Garden. As we have seen, Augustine's spiritual journey is best understood in terms of a number of small conversions which lead up to this chapter which is the climax of the Confessions as a whole. In Book VII, he experienced a dramatic conversion of the mind through the books of the Platonists, and now in Book VIII he experiences a conversion of the heart and will through the epistles of Paul.
Augustine makes it clear throughout this book that his hesitancy to embrace Christ is no longer a problem related to his intellect but to the unregenerate will: "All doubt had been taken from me that there is indestructible substance from which comes all substance. My desire was not to be more certain of you but to be more stable in you." (VIII.i.1) He was in the same condition as the Rich Young Ruler in the gospels, "attracted to the way, the Saviour himself, but still reluctant to go along its narrow paths." (VIII.i.1) Augustine describes his own inner turmoil as his mind fights against his will in terms reminiscent of Paul's struggle between flesh and Spirit in Romans 7: "The new will, which was beginning to be within me a will to serve you freely and to enjoy you, God, the only source of pleasure, was not yet strong enough to conquer my older will which had the strength of old habit. So my two wills, one old, the other new, one carnal, the other spiritual, were in conflict with one another, and their discord robbed my soul of all concentration." (VIII.V.10)
Augustine's intense inner conflict leads him into a philosophical excursus on the nature of the will since he understood the problem of conversion to be first and foremost, a problem of the human will: "The one necessary condition, which meant not only going but at once arriving there, was to have the will to go - provided only that the will was strong and unqualified, not the turning and twisting first this way, then that, of a will half-wounded, struggling with one part rising up and the other part falling down." (VIII.vii.19) It is a "monstrous situation", he contends, that the human will can control the motions of the body, but is unable to command the mind: "What causes this monstrous fact? and why is it so? The mind commands the body and is instantly obeyed. The mind commands itself and meets resistance. The mind commands the hand to move, and it is so easy that one hardly distinguishes the order from its execution. Yet mind is mind, and hand is body. The mind orders he mind to will. The recipient of the order is itself, yet it does not perform it." (VII.ix.21) Augustine concludes that his own will was divided into two: "In my own case,, as I deliberated about serving my Lord God which I had long been disposed to do, the self which willed to serve was identical with the self which was unwilling. It was I. I was neither wholly willing nor wholly unwilling. So I was in conflict with myself and was dissociated from myself." (VIII.x.22)
The internal division of mind and will that Augustine had been experiencing since Platonist philosophers had enabled him to conceive of God in terms of spiritual substance, rather than as physical matter diffused throughout the universe came to a climax in a Garden in Milan with his friend Alypius by his side: "This debate in my heart was a struggle of myself against myself. Alypius stood quest still at my side, and waited in silence for the outcome of my unprecedented state of agitation." (VIII.xi.27) In a garden scene highly reminiscent of the Garden of Eden (probably intentionally so), Augustine threw himself down under a "certain figtree" and wept uncontrollably. In this intense state of emotion the final and climactic conversion occurred: "As I was saying this and weeping in the bitter agony of my heart, suddenly I heard a voice from the nearby house changing as if it might be a boy or a girl (i do not know which), saying and repeating over and over again 'Pick up and read, pick up and read.'...I interpreted it solely as a divine command to me to open the book and read the first chapter I might find...So I hurried back to the place where Alypius was sitting. There I had put down the book of the apostle [Paul] when I got up. I seized it, opened it and in silence read the first passage on which my eyes lit: 'Not in riots and drunken parties, not in eroticism and indecencies, not in strife and rivalry, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh in its lusts' (Rom 13:13-14). I neither wished nor needed to read further. At once, with the last words of this sentence, it was as if a light of relief from all anxiety flooded into my heart. All the shadows of doubt were dispelled." (VIII.xi.29)
There are several significant theological points that could be made from this book and probably shaped the way that Augustine chose to tell his conversion narrative:
1) Original sin has corrupted the human will and rendered it completely unable to choose Christ apart from God's grace. Before God extends His grace to the lost sinner, he is like a corpse - completely unable to do anything about his lost situation (cf. Eph 2:1-10). Conversion is a miracle of resurrection no less than the resurrection of Christ.
2) Intellectual arguments and proofs cannot save you. Conversion is much more than simply becoming convinced of certain facts or truths concerning the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Faith has an intellectual component, but a purely intellectual faith is not the kind of faith that saves. Faith involves the heart, mind and the will - it is not purely intellectual, nor is it purely experiential.
3) Faith is a gift of God's grace that must be received. Although we often like to think of faith as a human capacity and a mere function of the will, the situation is more complex than that. In our fallen condition, we cannnot simply choose to follow Christ until we are made regenerate by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration always precedes faith although the two are intimately connected. To place faith before regeneration, is to commit the error of Pelagius (one of Augustine's primary theological opponents in his latter years) and to deny the devastating consequences of original sin on the human will.
4) "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Rom 10:17) It is interesting how Augustine brings this truth to the forefront in his own conversion narrative. God often chooses to grant the gift of faith through careful meditation on His Word. In His sovereign plan He ordains both the ends and the means through which those ends are accomplished. Scripture and the preaching of the Word are the means which God has ordained to bring His elect to repentance and faith.
HHKEY2BHBSS9
Augustine makes it clear throughout this book that his hesitancy to embrace Christ is no longer a problem related to his intellect but to the unregenerate will: "All doubt had been taken from me that there is indestructible substance from which comes all substance. My desire was not to be more certain of you but to be more stable in you." (VIII.i.1) He was in the same condition as the Rich Young Ruler in the gospels, "attracted to the way, the Saviour himself, but still reluctant to go along its narrow paths." (VIII.i.1) Augustine describes his own inner turmoil as his mind fights against his will in terms reminiscent of Paul's struggle between flesh and Spirit in Romans 7: "The new will, which was beginning to be within me a will to serve you freely and to enjoy you, God, the only source of pleasure, was not yet strong enough to conquer my older will which had the strength of old habit. So my two wills, one old, the other new, one carnal, the other spiritual, were in conflict with one another, and their discord robbed my soul of all concentration." (VIII.V.10)
Augustine's intense inner conflict leads him into a philosophical excursus on the nature of the will since he understood the problem of conversion to be first and foremost, a problem of the human will: "The one necessary condition, which meant not only going but at once arriving there, was to have the will to go - provided only that the will was strong and unqualified, not the turning and twisting first this way, then that, of a will half-wounded, struggling with one part rising up and the other part falling down." (VIII.vii.19) It is a "monstrous situation", he contends, that the human will can control the motions of the body, but is unable to command the mind: "What causes this monstrous fact? and why is it so? The mind commands the body and is instantly obeyed. The mind commands itself and meets resistance. The mind commands the hand to move, and it is so easy that one hardly distinguishes the order from its execution. Yet mind is mind, and hand is body. The mind orders he mind to will. The recipient of the order is itself, yet it does not perform it." (VII.ix.21) Augustine concludes that his own will was divided into two: "In my own case,, as I deliberated about serving my Lord God which I had long been disposed to do, the self which willed to serve was identical with the self which was unwilling. It was I. I was neither wholly willing nor wholly unwilling. So I was in conflict with myself and was dissociated from myself." (VIII.x.22)
The internal division of mind and will that Augustine had been experiencing since Platonist philosophers had enabled him to conceive of God in terms of spiritual substance, rather than as physical matter diffused throughout the universe came to a climax in a Garden in Milan with his friend Alypius by his side: "This debate in my heart was a struggle of myself against myself. Alypius stood quest still at my side, and waited in silence for the outcome of my unprecedented state of agitation." (VIII.xi.27) In a garden scene highly reminiscent of the Garden of Eden (probably intentionally so), Augustine threw himself down under a "certain figtree" and wept uncontrollably. In this intense state of emotion the final and climactic conversion occurred: "As I was saying this and weeping in the bitter agony of my heart, suddenly I heard a voice from the nearby house changing as if it might be a boy or a girl (i do not know which), saying and repeating over and over again 'Pick up and read, pick up and read.'...I interpreted it solely as a divine command to me to open the book and read the first chapter I might find...So I hurried back to the place where Alypius was sitting. There I had put down the book of the apostle [Paul] when I got up. I seized it, opened it and in silence read the first passage on which my eyes lit: 'Not in riots and drunken parties, not in eroticism and indecencies, not in strife and rivalry, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh in its lusts' (Rom 13:13-14). I neither wished nor needed to read further. At once, with the last words of this sentence, it was as if a light of relief from all anxiety flooded into my heart. All the shadows of doubt were dispelled." (VIII.xi.29)
There are several significant theological points that could be made from this book and probably shaped the way that Augustine chose to tell his conversion narrative:
1) Original sin has corrupted the human will and rendered it completely unable to choose Christ apart from God's grace. Before God extends His grace to the lost sinner, he is like a corpse - completely unable to do anything about his lost situation (cf. Eph 2:1-10). Conversion is a miracle of resurrection no less than the resurrection of Christ.
2) Intellectual arguments and proofs cannot save you. Conversion is much more than simply becoming convinced of certain facts or truths concerning the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Faith has an intellectual component, but a purely intellectual faith is not the kind of faith that saves. Faith involves the heart, mind and the will - it is not purely intellectual, nor is it purely experiential.
3) Faith is a gift of God's grace that must be received. Although we often like to think of faith as a human capacity and a mere function of the will, the situation is more complex than that. In our fallen condition, we cannnot simply choose to follow Christ until we are made regenerate by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration always precedes faith although the two are intimately connected. To place faith before regeneration, is to commit the error of Pelagius (one of Augustine's primary theological opponents in his latter years) and to deny the devastating consequences of original sin on the human will.
4) "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Rom 10:17) It is interesting how Augustine brings this truth to the forefront in his own conversion narrative. God often chooses to grant the gift of faith through careful meditation on His Word. In His sovereign plan He ordains both the ends and the means through which those ends are accomplished. Scripture and the preaching of the Word are the means which God has ordained to bring His elect to repentance and faith.
HHKEY2BHBSS9
Friday, November 25, 2011
Saved by Faith but Judged According to Works??? (Matt 25:31-46)
Matthew 25:31-46 provides us with a vivid description of the final judgment and can be a perplexing passage for many of us who hold strongly to sola fide since it seems to imply (in contrast with Paul) that salvation is ultimately by works rather than by faith alone in Christ:
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (vv. 41-46)
Is there a contradiction in the Bible here? Does Paul teach sola gratia, while Jesus teaches works-righteousness? A number of solutions have been offered:
Solution 1: All Good People go to Heaven
This is the Liberal Protestant answer to this question which really isn't much of a solution at all. Those who deny the authority of God's Word, have no difficulty accepting that it contains irreconcilable contradictions because they do not believe that Scripture is Verbally Inspired (cf. 2 Tim 3:16). For many Liberals, the essence of Christianity can be boiled down to being a nice person, following the golden rule and trying to improve society through social reform - in a nutshell it is humanism dressed up in a clerical collar. If they retain a theology of eternal punishment then the criteria for judgment becomes how closely you followed the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. If they don't retain a theology of eternal punishment, it doesn't really matter in the end since hell is an invention of the early church that has been placed in the mouth of Jesus and therefore doesn't really exist.
The Liberal Protestant view interprets "the least of these brothers of mine" (v. 40) as a reference to all people generally.
Solution 2: There Are Multiple Eschatological Judgments
This solution is offered by Dispensationalists who claim that there is not one final judgment, but three. Matthew 25:31-46, they argue, is a judgment for the nations to determine which ones will enter into the thousand year Millennial Kingdom. This appears to solve the problem nicely, since Matthew 25 applies to believers living in another dispensation and does not apply to believers today who are saved by faith alone - (sigh of relief!) According to this view, "the least of these brothers of mine" is a reference to Jewish believers living during the time of the Great Tribulation. The criteria for entering the Millennium in this view, is how the Gentile nations treated the Jewish people during the Tribulation.
Dispensationalists hold that a second eschatological judgment is described in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and is a judgment for reward for Christians. This "Bema Seat Judgment", they say will occur in heaven during the Great Tribulation after the church has been raptured and before the final appearing of Christ (parousia) at the end of the Tribulation.
The third and final judgment is described in Rev 20:11-15 when non-believers will be resurrected and judged and the sheep (God's elect) will be separated from the goats (those who rejected Christ).
Although the Dispensational view seems to offer a plausible explanation to this passage which guards sola fide, it requires that you first accept the presuppositions of the theological system, which in my own view cannot be easily substantiated from Scripture itself. (A subject for another day)
Solution 3: One Final Judgment- Justified by Faith and Judged according to the Evidence
A third view, which I personally think is the best one makes matters very simple when it comes to eschatology. All passages in the New Testament and in the Old Testament prophetic books that refer to judgment are speaking of the same event, which is called the "Great White Throne Judgment" in Rev 20. There will be one eschatological judgment at the end of the age, at which time believers and non-believers will stand before Christ to give an account of their lives. This judgment will consist of an evaluation of both the object of one's faith (whether it was Jesus Christ alone or something else), and the righteous works that have been done during our pilgrimage on earth. The works performed by God's elect will, at this time, be graciously rewarded by the Lord as Paul teaches us in 1 Cor 5.
The answer to the dilemma concerning faith and works as they relate to the final judgment is resolved if one interprets these judgment passages in the light of the entirety of Scripture. The NT teaches two very important truths related to this issue which must both be equally affirmed. Emphasizing Proposition 1 to the exclusion of Proposition 2 leads to the heresy of Antinomianism. Emphasizing Proposition 2 to the exclusion of Proposition 1 leads to the opposite heresy of Legalism:
1) Salvation is a gift of God that cannot be earned. (Eph 2:8-9) We are justified by faith alone in Christ. (Rom 5:1).
2) True and saving faith perseveres to the end. (1 John 2:19) Genuine faith is always accompanied by good works, just as a good tree produces good fruit. (Eph 2:10, James 2:24; Matt 7:17-20) In other words, good works are an indispensible part of the Christian life.
So .... will we be judged on the basis of faith or of works?? The answer to this question is that the good works that the Spirit produces in our lives as believers is the ultimate evidence of saving faith. Works are not the ground of our salvation, but they are the evidence by which we can know whether or not we are truly saved. To put it another way - we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, but we will be judged on the basis of works which validate the genuineness of our faith in Christ. With this in mind, passages like Matthew 25 which stress the importance of good works should not distress us or cause us to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul - they should cause us to examine ourselves to see whether we are truly in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). They should cause us to strive to make our calling and election sure. (2 Peter 1:10). They should serve as warnings that cause us to be ready for the return of our Lord and so that we will not be among the crowd of false professors on that final day (Matt 7:21-23), or that we would be ashamed at His appearing (1 John 2:28).
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (vv. 41-46)
Is there a contradiction in the Bible here? Does Paul teach sola gratia, while Jesus teaches works-righteousness? A number of solutions have been offered:
Solution 1: All Good People go to Heaven
This is the Liberal Protestant answer to this question which really isn't much of a solution at all. Those who deny the authority of God's Word, have no difficulty accepting that it contains irreconcilable contradictions because they do not believe that Scripture is Verbally Inspired (cf. 2 Tim 3:16). For many Liberals, the essence of Christianity can be boiled down to being a nice person, following the golden rule and trying to improve society through social reform - in a nutshell it is humanism dressed up in a clerical collar. If they retain a theology of eternal punishment then the criteria for judgment becomes how closely you followed the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. If they don't retain a theology of eternal punishment, it doesn't really matter in the end since hell is an invention of the early church that has been placed in the mouth of Jesus and therefore doesn't really exist.
The Liberal Protestant view interprets "the least of these brothers of mine" (v. 40) as a reference to all people generally.
Solution 2: There Are Multiple Eschatological Judgments
This solution is offered by Dispensationalists who claim that there is not one final judgment, but three. Matthew 25:31-46, they argue, is a judgment for the nations to determine which ones will enter into the thousand year Millennial Kingdom. This appears to solve the problem nicely, since Matthew 25 applies to believers living in another dispensation and does not apply to believers today who are saved by faith alone - (sigh of relief!) According to this view, "the least of these brothers of mine" is a reference to Jewish believers living during the time of the Great Tribulation. The criteria for entering the Millennium in this view, is how the Gentile nations treated the Jewish people during the Tribulation.
Dispensationalists hold that a second eschatological judgment is described in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and is a judgment for reward for Christians. This "Bema Seat Judgment", they say will occur in heaven during the Great Tribulation after the church has been raptured and before the final appearing of Christ (parousia) at the end of the Tribulation.
The third and final judgment is described in Rev 20:11-15 when non-believers will be resurrected and judged and the sheep (God's elect) will be separated from the goats (those who rejected Christ).
Although the Dispensational view seems to offer a plausible explanation to this passage which guards sola fide, it requires that you first accept the presuppositions of the theological system, which in my own view cannot be easily substantiated from Scripture itself. (A subject for another day)
Solution 3: One Final Judgment- Justified by Faith and Judged according to the Evidence
A third view, which I personally think is the best one makes matters very simple when it comes to eschatology. All passages in the New Testament and in the Old Testament prophetic books that refer to judgment are speaking of the same event, which is called the "Great White Throne Judgment" in Rev 20. There will be one eschatological judgment at the end of the age, at which time believers and non-believers will stand before Christ to give an account of their lives. This judgment will consist of an evaluation of both the object of one's faith (whether it was Jesus Christ alone or something else), and the righteous works that have been done during our pilgrimage on earth. The works performed by God's elect will, at this time, be graciously rewarded by the Lord as Paul teaches us in 1 Cor 5.
The answer to the dilemma concerning faith and works as they relate to the final judgment is resolved if one interprets these judgment passages in the light of the entirety of Scripture. The NT teaches two very important truths related to this issue which must both be equally affirmed. Emphasizing Proposition 1 to the exclusion of Proposition 2 leads to the heresy of Antinomianism. Emphasizing Proposition 2 to the exclusion of Proposition 1 leads to the opposite heresy of Legalism:
1) Salvation is a gift of God that cannot be earned. (Eph 2:8-9) We are justified by faith alone in Christ. (Rom 5:1).
2) True and saving faith perseveres to the end. (1 John 2:19) Genuine faith is always accompanied by good works, just as a good tree produces good fruit. (Eph 2:10, James 2:24; Matt 7:17-20) In other words, good works are an indispensible part of the Christian life.
So .... will we be judged on the basis of faith or of works?? The answer to this question is that the good works that the Spirit produces in our lives as believers is the ultimate evidence of saving faith. Works are not the ground of our salvation, but they are the evidence by which we can know whether or not we are truly saved. To put it another way - we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, but we will be judged on the basis of works which validate the genuineness of our faith in Christ. With this in mind, passages like Matthew 25 which stress the importance of good works should not distress us or cause us to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul - they should cause us to examine ourselves to see whether we are truly in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). They should cause us to strive to make our calling and election sure. (2 Peter 1:10). They should serve as warnings that cause us to be ready for the return of our Lord and so that we will not be among the crowd of false professors on that final day (Matt 7:21-23), or that we would be ashamed at His appearing (1 John 2:28).
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) - Futurism and Preterism
My journey through Matthew has brought me today to the Olivet Discourse, one of the primary eschatological passages in the New Testament that has been the subject of intense intra-mural debate among Christians. I am going to briefly sketch three different categories of interpretation:
Extreme Futurism:
The first theological system that I learned growing up in the fundamentalist movement was the Classical Dispensationalism of C.I. Schofield (rooted in the 19th century theology of the Plymouth Brethren leader J.N. Darby) which differentiates Matthew 24 from its synoptic parallel in Luke, viewing the former as the fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week (cf. Daniel 9:24-27) and the latter as a reference to the historic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. This 'seventieth week' which will be seven years long is often called the 'Great Tribulation' which will follow a 'secret rapture' of the predominately Gentile Church. Dispensationalists differ on the exact timing of this rapture - some beliving that it will occur at the beginning of the tribulation period, and others holding that it will occur at the half-way mark. They effectively split the return of Christ into two phases: Christ's return for the Church which is imminent (understood as 'any moment') and will not be preceded by any signs, and the second coming of Jesus (parousia) which will occur at the end of the Great Tribulation when he will return to earth to reign in a literally reconstructed temple in Jerusalem. Because Matthew 24 is full of signs that point to the Lord's second coming, Dispensationalists reason according to their theological system, that it cannot possibly be a text about the rapture of the Church. All eschatological texts in the NT are divided into 'rapture texts' and 'parousia texts' depending on whether or not there are signs which precede the event. For Classical Dispensationalists, Matt 24 is strictly a 'parousia' text (including vv.36-44 which is sometimes understood (wrongly they say) as a reference to the 'secret rapture' of the Church.
The Classical Dispensationalist interpretation of Matt 24 is that the Olivet Discourse pertains exclusively to the final generation of Jewish believers who are alive during the Great Tribulation. It may be an interesting passage for Christians to read, but it is not really that important for the current dispensation. It is a view that sees no historic fulfillment in Matthew 24 in spite of the fact that the entire discourse was occasioned by the disciples question regarding the destructon of the temple (v.2). According to Dispensationalists, Jesus simply ignores this first question posed by the disciples and focuses exclusively on their second question about the close of the age and events of the future (v.3).
Preterism:
Preterism is the view that Revelation and Matthew must be understood in light of the historic events of A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus. Preterism is broken into two views, viz. Full Preterism which views Matthew 24 and Revelation as being completely fulfilled in the first century, and Partial Preterism which views much of Matthew 24 and Revelation as already fulfilled, and some which is yet to be fulfilled in the Eschaton. The distinction between Full and Partial Preterism is a very important one. Full Preterism is not an orthodox position because it denies the future, bodily return of the Lord Jesus. Partial Preterism, on the other hand is a very live option for Evangelicals and has been promoted by R.C. Sproul, R.V.G. Tasker and others.
Partial Preterists break Matthew 24 into two sections. Verses 1-28 deal exclusively with the historical destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The mysterious 'Abomination of Desolation' (v. 15) is a reference to the desecration of the Temple by Titus (who actually offered a pagan sacrifice in the temple court), and not a reference to the eschatological Antichrist of the Great Tribulation. Partial Preterists interpret vv. 29-44 as the future bodily return of Christ at the end of the age, while Full Preterists erroneously contend that these verses were fulfilled historically in the first century.
I came across a passage in the City of God recently that seems to indicate that St. Augustine can also be categorized as a Partial Preterist: "I pass over many other passages which seem to refer to the last judgment but which, on more careful condideration, are found to be ambiguous, or to refer more pertinently to something else. They may refer, for example, to the 'coming' of the Saviour which is going on throughout this present age in His Church: that is, in His members. In this sense, He comes part by part and little by little, since the whole Church is His body. Again the reference may be to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when Christ speaks of that destruction He often does so as if He were speakign of the end of the world and of the last and great day of judment." (XX.5)
Moderate Futurism:
While I see the Partial Preterist position as a possibility and a better option that the Dispensationalist view, I do not think it is the best way to understand Matthew 24. In my own understanding, Matthew 24 refers to two different events in one single prophecy, and must be interpreted as a prophecy having multiple layers of fulfillment that are not easy to separate in a simplistic way. We ought to interpret Matthew 24 just as we interpret Old Testament prophecy - there are usually multiple levels of fulfillment, both historical and eschatological.
There is little doubt in my mind that Jesus is talking in Matthew 24 about events that were fulfilled in A.D. 70 and also that the language is heightened in such a way that he is also describing events that will happen just prior to his return (which I understand to be a single event that will occur at the end of the Tribulation). The Abomination of Desolation mentioned by Daniel in the OT and used again here by our Lord, is an event that has numerous historical fulfillments. It was fulfilled in the Maccabean period when Antiochus Ephiphanes sacrificed a pig in the temple (surely the backdrop of Jesus words). It was fulfilled again in A.D. 70 when Titus offered sacrifice in the temple courts. It will be fulfilled again in the future by the Antichrist - although not in a literal temple since the Church itself is the temple of God! Although we do not understand what exactly will happen, Jesus indicates in a parenthetical statement in v. 15 that Christians alive during that future time of firey persecution and martyrdom will understand what this passage means when the event actually occurs.
Extreme Futurism:
The first theological system that I learned growing up in the fundamentalist movement was the Classical Dispensationalism of C.I. Schofield (rooted in the 19th century theology of the Plymouth Brethren leader J.N. Darby) which differentiates Matthew 24 from its synoptic parallel in Luke, viewing the former as the fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week (cf. Daniel 9:24-27) and the latter as a reference to the historic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. This 'seventieth week' which will be seven years long is often called the 'Great Tribulation' which will follow a 'secret rapture' of the predominately Gentile Church. Dispensationalists differ on the exact timing of this rapture - some beliving that it will occur at the beginning of the tribulation period, and others holding that it will occur at the half-way mark. They effectively split the return of Christ into two phases: Christ's return for the Church which is imminent (understood as 'any moment') and will not be preceded by any signs, and the second coming of Jesus (parousia) which will occur at the end of the Great Tribulation when he will return to earth to reign in a literally reconstructed temple in Jerusalem. Because Matthew 24 is full of signs that point to the Lord's second coming, Dispensationalists reason according to their theological system, that it cannot possibly be a text about the rapture of the Church. All eschatological texts in the NT are divided into 'rapture texts' and 'parousia texts' depending on whether or not there are signs which precede the event. For Classical Dispensationalists, Matt 24 is strictly a 'parousia' text (including vv.36-44 which is sometimes understood (wrongly they say) as a reference to the 'secret rapture' of the Church.
The Classical Dispensationalist interpretation of Matt 24 is that the Olivet Discourse pertains exclusively to the final generation of Jewish believers who are alive during the Great Tribulation. It may be an interesting passage for Christians to read, but it is not really that important for the current dispensation. It is a view that sees no historic fulfillment in Matthew 24 in spite of the fact that the entire discourse was occasioned by the disciples question regarding the destructon of the temple (v.2). According to Dispensationalists, Jesus simply ignores this first question posed by the disciples and focuses exclusively on their second question about the close of the age and events of the future (v.3).
Preterism:
Preterism is the view that Revelation and Matthew must be understood in light of the historic events of A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus. Preterism is broken into two views, viz. Full Preterism which views Matthew 24 and Revelation as being completely fulfilled in the first century, and Partial Preterism which views much of Matthew 24 and Revelation as already fulfilled, and some which is yet to be fulfilled in the Eschaton. The distinction between Full and Partial Preterism is a very important one. Full Preterism is not an orthodox position because it denies the future, bodily return of the Lord Jesus. Partial Preterism, on the other hand is a very live option for Evangelicals and has been promoted by R.C. Sproul, R.V.G. Tasker and others.
Partial Preterists break Matthew 24 into two sections. Verses 1-28 deal exclusively with the historical destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The mysterious 'Abomination of Desolation' (v. 15) is a reference to the desecration of the Temple by Titus (who actually offered a pagan sacrifice in the temple court), and not a reference to the eschatological Antichrist of the Great Tribulation. Partial Preterists interpret vv. 29-44 as the future bodily return of Christ at the end of the age, while Full Preterists erroneously contend that these verses were fulfilled historically in the first century.
I came across a passage in the City of God recently that seems to indicate that St. Augustine can also be categorized as a Partial Preterist: "I pass over many other passages which seem to refer to the last judgment but which, on more careful condideration, are found to be ambiguous, or to refer more pertinently to something else. They may refer, for example, to the 'coming' of the Saviour which is going on throughout this present age in His Church: that is, in His members. In this sense, He comes part by part and little by little, since the whole Church is His body. Again the reference may be to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when Christ speaks of that destruction He often does so as if He were speakign of the end of the world and of the last and great day of judment." (XX.5)
Moderate Futurism:
While I see the Partial Preterist position as a possibility and a better option that the Dispensationalist view, I do not think it is the best way to understand Matthew 24. In my own understanding, Matthew 24 refers to two different events in one single prophecy, and must be interpreted as a prophecy having multiple layers of fulfillment that are not easy to separate in a simplistic way. We ought to interpret Matthew 24 just as we interpret Old Testament prophecy - there are usually multiple levels of fulfillment, both historical and eschatological.
There is little doubt in my mind that Jesus is talking in Matthew 24 about events that were fulfilled in A.D. 70 and also that the language is heightened in such a way that he is also describing events that will happen just prior to his return (which I understand to be a single event that will occur at the end of the Tribulation). The Abomination of Desolation mentioned by Daniel in the OT and used again here by our Lord, is an event that has numerous historical fulfillments. It was fulfilled in the Maccabean period when Antiochus Ephiphanes sacrificed a pig in the temple (surely the backdrop of Jesus words). It was fulfilled again in A.D. 70 when Titus offered sacrifice in the temple courts. It will be fulfilled again in the future by the Antichrist - although not in a literal temple since the Church itself is the temple of God! Although we do not understand what exactly will happen, Jesus indicates in a parenthetical statement in v. 15 that Christians alive during that future time of firey persecution and martyrdom will understand what this passage means when the event actually occurs.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Missionaries of Hell - Matt 23:15
In my Scripture reading this morning I came across an interesting passage that doesn't usually figure largely into our theology of missions: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." (Matt 23:15)
These are extremely strong words from the Lord about "missions" that demonstrate that not all missionary activity is pleasing to Him. In fact, in the preceding verse, Jesus accuses these same missionaries of "shut[ing] the kingdom of heaven in people's faces"!!
What kind of missionary activity is Jesus describing here?? Here are a few reflections:
1) Missionaries who preach works righteousness. The Pharisees were proclaiming a false message of works- righteousness that misunderstood the role of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in God's redemptive plan. Like many religious people today, the Pharisees wrongly believed that people are made right with God by obeying laws and traditions, rather than by faith alone in Israel's Messiah! Paul clearly tells us that the role of the law is to convict of sin, not to demonstrate our own righteousness: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:19-20) Any presentation of the gospel that makes salvation depend on obedience to laws or traditions is missionary activity that God rejects as damnable.
2) Missionaries who herald a heretical/ false gospel. There are no shortage of false teachers today who have an intense missionary zeal that is combined with a lethal dose of heresy. Jesus warns us about these missionaries of hell: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matt 7:15) The apostle Paul warns us about those who herald a false gospel in the strongest possible language which he repeats twice for emphasis: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathama" (Gal 1:9).
3) Missionaries who promote themselves or their organization rather than Christ. One very subtle, but lethal temptation for many missionaries (Evangelicals included) is to use the gospel as an instrument of self-promotion and power politics rather than as a spiritual weapon that we use to demolish the strongholds that keep people enslaved to sin and false religious systems. The ultimate aim of the gospel is the glory of God and the promotion of Christ crucified and resurrected, not the promotion of a person or an organization: "For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus sake." (2 Cor 4:5) Mission endeavors that are motivated by pride and self-promotion are offensive to God as are missionaries who feel the need to 'compete' with other denominations or organizations that are also centred on the gospel once for all delivered to the saints.
4) Missionaries who use pragmatic gimmicks that cheapen the gospel. This is another very serious danger for Christians (often well meaning) who promote the gospel as though it were some kind of cheap trinket on a late night infomercial instead of the "power of God for salvation for all who believe". There are many false 'gospels' today being promoted in this cast: The gospel of self-esteem, the prosperity gospel, the gospel that is so fixated on meeting 'felt needs' that it fails to deal adequately with the root issue of sin and our need for redemption. If we feel that the gospel is a commodity that needs to be marketed, propped up and supplimented with gimmicks in order to reach a new postmodern generation, we must take Paul's words to heart: "But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's Word." (2 Cor 4:2) "We are not like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ." (2 Cor 2:17) Creativity and innovation are good and are to be commended generally speaking, but let us never forget that the power of the gospel does not depend on our elaborate strategies and methods, but in the Spirit of God alone, who is able to regenerate the sinner and to "deliver us from the dominion of darkness and transfer us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col 1:13)
These are extremely strong words from the Lord about "missions" that demonstrate that not all missionary activity is pleasing to Him. In fact, in the preceding verse, Jesus accuses these same missionaries of "shut[ing] the kingdom of heaven in people's faces"!!
What kind of missionary activity is Jesus describing here?? Here are a few reflections:
1) Missionaries who preach works righteousness. The Pharisees were proclaiming a false message of works- righteousness that misunderstood the role of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in God's redemptive plan. Like many religious people today, the Pharisees wrongly believed that people are made right with God by obeying laws and traditions, rather than by faith alone in Israel's Messiah! Paul clearly tells us that the role of the law is to convict of sin, not to demonstrate our own righteousness: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:19-20) Any presentation of the gospel that makes salvation depend on obedience to laws or traditions is missionary activity that God rejects as damnable.
2) Missionaries who herald a heretical/ false gospel. There are no shortage of false teachers today who have an intense missionary zeal that is combined with a lethal dose of heresy. Jesus warns us about these missionaries of hell: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matt 7:15) The apostle Paul warns us about those who herald a false gospel in the strongest possible language which he repeats twice for emphasis: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathama" (Gal 1:9).
3) Missionaries who promote themselves or their organization rather than Christ. One very subtle, but lethal temptation for many missionaries (Evangelicals included) is to use the gospel as an instrument of self-promotion and power politics rather than as a spiritual weapon that we use to demolish the strongholds that keep people enslaved to sin and false religious systems. The ultimate aim of the gospel is the glory of God and the promotion of Christ crucified and resurrected, not the promotion of a person or an organization: "For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus sake." (2 Cor 4:5) Mission endeavors that are motivated by pride and self-promotion are offensive to God as are missionaries who feel the need to 'compete' with other denominations or organizations that are also centred on the gospel once for all delivered to the saints.
4) Missionaries who use pragmatic gimmicks that cheapen the gospel. This is another very serious danger for Christians (often well meaning) who promote the gospel as though it were some kind of cheap trinket on a late night infomercial instead of the "power of God for salvation for all who believe". There are many false 'gospels' today being promoted in this cast: The gospel of self-esteem, the prosperity gospel, the gospel that is so fixated on meeting 'felt needs' that it fails to deal adequately with the root issue of sin and our need for redemption. If we feel that the gospel is a commodity that needs to be marketed, propped up and supplimented with gimmicks in order to reach a new postmodern generation, we must take Paul's words to heart: "But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's Word." (2 Cor 4:2) "We are not like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ." (2 Cor 2:17) Creativity and innovation are good and are to be commended generally speaking, but let us never forget that the power of the gospel does not depend on our elaborate strategies and methods, but in the Spirit of God alone, who is able to regenerate the sinner and to "deliver us from the dominion of darkness and transfer us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col 1:13)
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Infant Salvation, Original Sin and the Age of Accountability
One particularly difficult theological issue that I have wrestled with on and off for several years is the question of what happens to infants and young children who die without making a personal profession of faith in Christ. As I was reading through Book XXI of Augustine's City of God last night, I was forced to think about this issue once again. Growing up, my parents always reassured me that there was an "age of accountability" before which God would never hold a child responsible for sin. For many years I simply took this view for granted and propped it up with a few scant proof texts from the Old Testament (most notably 2 Sam 12:13-23). In recent years, I've come to question this position for a number of important theological reasons which I will outline briefly:
Theological Concerns about Infant Salvation:
First, I've become convinced that the so-called "age of accountability" finds little more Scriptural grounding than the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. It simply cannot be firmly substantiated from Scripture itself however well intentioned it might be from a pastoral point of view. With emotionally sensitive issues like the passing away of a child, the temptation is very strong for us to construct speculative, and perhaps even unbiblical doctrines in order to give a certain measure of pastoral comfort to grieving parents.
Second, the doctrine of infant salvation as commonly formulated by Evangelicals appears to me to be a form of 'inclusivism' which holds that salvation is possible apart from faith. In answering the infamous question about what happens to the unevangelized pagan, the majority of conservative Evangelicals deny that God will save him apart from faith in Christ. Those of us who accept this view (called 'exclusivism') believe that Natural Revelation is enough to condemn and to take away excuse, but not enough to save (cf. Rom 1). A minority of Evangelicals hold a form of soft 'inclusivism' that says that God in His mercy will save people in this situation apart from personal faith in Christ.
To hold that hundreds of thousands of people who have never been evangelized will go to hell, while teaching that all infants go to heaven seems to somewhat inconsistent as I've reflected on it. This double standard was driven home to me several years ago at McGill when a student from China asked me in the cafeteria how I could possibly believe that all of his relatives were in hell when they had never even heard the name of Jesus before. Shortly after this incident, another international student, whose mother had committed suicide before hearing the gospel asked me the same very difficult question. It is often easy for us to speak theoretically about who is or is not in hell, until we are confronted with a real pastoral situation where we are expected to give real answers to very personal and emotionally loaded questions. Does a just and good God condemn unevangelized people to an eternity in hell? The Bible seems to indicate that He does even though this seems incredibly hard for us to accept or understand at an emotional level. Does a just and good God condemn infants and young children to hell? This is a question that has troubled me for several years - especially now that I am a father with two young children of my own.
Thirdly, popular Evangelical views on infant salvation and the age of accountability frequently rest on a Pelagian foundation that denies (or at least significantly weakens) the doctrine of Original Sin. Western Christians from the time of Augustine have agreed that the dire consequences of Adam's sin are somehow transmitted to every human being, as the apostle Paul so clearly teaches in Romans 5. Significant disagreement persists, however, on some of the specifics with regard to the nature of original sin and the mechanics of its transmission from one generation to the next. Several important distinctions must therefore be made in sorting out this critical issue as it relates to the salvation of infants:
1) Transmission of Guilt vs. Transmission of Pollution
Some Christians hold that the guilt of Adam's sin has been transmitted to his posterity, while others hold that only the polluted nature has been transmitted. Those who take the former view, believe that all human beings (infants included) are held responsible for Adam's sin and merit an eternity separated from God. Those who take the latter view believe that infants receive a sin nature that guarantees that they will commit actual sins at some point in the future, but are not held personally responsible for the original sin of Adam.
2) Participation vs. Imputation
The means of transmission has been an issue of contention and speculation since the 4th century. Augustine held the position that all of humanity was 'seminally' present in Adam's loins and therefore actually participated in the crime. In other words, we were all physically present in the garden with Adam and committed the crime with him. For obvious reasons, this view is no longer widely held. The more prominent view among contemporary Reformed Evangelicals is that Adam functioned as the "Federal Head" or representative for all of humanity. As our federal head, the guilt of original sin was imputed to all of us by God so that we are implicated in Adam's sin.
3) Immediate Imputation vs. Mediate Imputation
Some have held that the guilt of original sin is imputed immediately to the child from the moment of conception, while others hold that the guilt of original sin is imputed mediately to the child as soon as (s)he commits the first conscious act of sin. With respect to the issue of infant salvation, mediate imputation appears to offer a certain degree of comfort since is makes it possible to believe that all infants who are miscarried or who die in infancy are innocent in God's eyes and therefore not liable to condemnation. Unfortunately, mediate imputation does not offer comfort to parents of children over the age of 1 or 2.
4) Baptismal Regeneration
Many, Christians historically have held a doctrine of Baptismal regeneration which teaches that the guilt of original sin is washed away through the sacrament of water baptism. Baptized children who died in infancy and are expunged of original sin would go directly to heaven, while unbaptized children would either go to hell, or to limbo where the punishment is minimal. Others have speculated that unbaptized children will be given an opportunity to hear the gospel after death. 'Postmortem evangelism' has been an attractive option in recent years for a number of Evangelicals (particularly of the Arminian persuasion) who wish to offer some kind of pastoral comfort to grieving parents. The surface comfort of this position loses much of its force, however, when the grieving parent comes to realize that there are no guarantees that their child will not reject the gospel in the next life and still spend eternity separated from Christ.
Personal Reflections and Conclusions:
My own theological convictions as a Reformed Baptist makes the issue of infant salvation quite challenging to resolve on pastoral level. I am a federal theologian who accepts immediate imputation and denies Baptismal Regeneration. I see absolutely no compelling evidence for postmortem evangelism in Scripture and even if I did, I do not believe that it is a comforting doctrine. Furthermore, I find most of the common proof-texts such as the example of David's son fairly inconclusive. As mentioned above, they are about as convincing for me as the Roman Catholic contention that Matt 12:32 is a canonical reference to Purgatory. Does this mean that all children who do not live long enough to make a profession of faith are automatically condemned to a Christless eternity? I will conclude this post with some personal reflections and tentative conclusions on this subject:
1) It is critical to maintain a robust doctrine of original sin regardless of where you fall on this issue. Children and infants, like all of us are totally depraved, guilty and liable for judgment from the moment of conception. We are not "born innocent" as Sarah McLachlan would have us believe. God cannot merely overlook or forgive sin in a child because that would be a travesty of justice and a violation of His own essential character. To say that God can forgive a person (adult or child) apart from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is closer to an Islamic worldview than it is to Biblical Christianity. If God can forgive anyone He wants, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus becomes superfluous.
2) I reject any form of baptismal regeneration as a form of works righteousness that denies sola fide and compromises the heart of the gospel. References in the NT that appear to teach baptismal regeneration are better understood as instances of 'metonymy' since Christian conversion is a cluster of events with terms that are often used interchangeably by the NT authors even though they must be distinguished theologically.
3) I accept that God can regenerate a person apart from faith if He chooses to do so. The one clear example of this that I see in Scripture is John the Baptist who appears to have been regenerate from his mother's womb. Although God does not normally work this way with adults since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God", it is at least theoretically possible for Him to regenerate any person that he chooses at any time He chooses on the basis of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Technically, this is a form of Evangelical inclusivism which places me on a slippery slope. If I concede that God could regenerate an infant through Christ apart from personal faith, theological consistency demands that I also concede that He could ini theory regenerate an adult apart from faith should He chose to do so. The danger of this view is that it opens the door to universalism and more radical forms of inclusivism. The strong monergistic emphasis that lies at the heart of Reformed theology (ie. the view that salvation is all of God's initiative and none of our own) has historically caused a number of Reformed theologians to slide toward a form of universalism or radical inclusivism (ie. Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Karl Barth, etc.).
4) In conclusion, I tend to agree with Spurgeon, Warfield and many other Reformed theologians that all young children and infants are among God's elect and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism or an explicit profession of faith in Christ. Historically, many Conservative Presbyterians have held a modified version of this teaching by restricting election to the children of believers on the basis of covenant theology and the exegetically disputed 1 Cor 7:14. Although this view will be comforting to believing parents who have lost a child, it makes no guarantees whatsoever to the children of non-believers.
I will readily admit that there are no crystal clear verses in Scripture that demonstrate that all children are among the elect, but there are a number of verses that do seem to hint at it in a very vague way. Spurgeon once preached a very helpful sermon on this topic entitled "Infant Salvation" where he outlines most of the pertinent passages: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm Ultimately, our responsibility as parents is to consistently preach the gospel to our children from a young age, to pray earnestly for their salvation and to call them to repentance and faith when they are intellectually capable of making an informed response. Beyond this, they are in the hands of our loving and sovereign God who will act justly.
5) Although I wish that Scripture was more clear on this particular issue, I feel that my case is strong enough to give parents who have lost a child some theological basis for assurance that their child is present with the Lord. Ultimately, I would want to point them to character of God and give them assurance that He is good, just and worthy of our trust.
6) Everything said above with respect to Infant Salvation also could be applied to individuals born with various mental or developmental incapacities that would prevent them from understanding the gospel message.
Theological Concerns about Infant Salvation:
First, I've become convinced that the so-called "age of accountability" finds little more Scriptural grounding than the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. It simply cannot be firmly substantiated from Scripture itself however well intentioned it might be from a pastoral point of view. With emotionally sensitive issues like the passing away of a child, the temptation is very strong for us to construct speculative, and perhaps even unbiblical doctrines in order to give a certain measure of pastoral comfort to grieving parents.
Second, the doctrine of infant salvation as commonly formulated by Evangelicals appears to me to be a form of 'inclusivism' which holds that salvation is possible apart from faith. In answering the infamous question about what happens to the unevangelized pagan, the majority of conservative Evangelicals deny that God will save him apart from faith in Christ. Those of us who accept this view (called 'exclusivism') believe that Natural Revelation is enough to condemn and to take away excuse, but not enough to save (cf. Rom 1). A minority of Evangelicals hold a form of soft 'inclusivism' that says that God in His mercy will save people in this situation apart from personal faith in Christ.
To hold that hundreds of thousands of people who have never been evangelized will go to hell, while teaching that all infants go to heaven seems to somewhat inconsistent as I've reflected on it. This double standard was driven home to me several years ago at McGill when a student from China asked me in the cafeteria how I could possibly believe that all of his relatives were in hell when they had never even heard the name of Jesus before. Shortly after this incident, another international student, whose mother had committed suicide before hearing the gospel asked me the same very difficult question. It is often easy for us to speak theoretically about who is or is not in hell, until we are confronted with a real pastoral situation where we are expected to give real answers to very personal and emotionally loaded questions. Does a just and good God condemn unevangelized people to an eternity in hell? The Bible seems to indicate that He does even though this seems incredibly hard for us to accept or understand at an emotional level. Does a just and good God condemn infants and young children to hell? This is a question that has troubled me for several years - especially now that I am a father with two young children of my own.
Thirdly, popular Evangelical views on infant salvation and the age of accountability frequently rest on a Pelagian foundation that denies (or at least significantly weakens) the doctrine of Original Sin. Western Christians from the time of Augustine have agreed that the dire consequences of Adam's sin are somehow transmitted to every human being, as the apostle Paul so clearly teaches in Romans 5. Significant disagreement persists, however, on some of the specifics with regard to the nature of original sin and the mechanics of its transmission from one generation to the next. Several important distinctions must therefore be made in sorting out this critical issue as it relates to the salvation of infants:
1) Transmission of Guilt vs. Transmission of Pollution
Some Christians hold that the guilt of Adam's sin has been transmitted to his posterity, while others hold that only the polluted nature has been transmitted. Those who take the former view, believe that all human beings (infants included) are held responsible for Adam's sin and merit an eternity separated from God. Those who take the latter view believe that infants receive a sin nature that guarantees that they will commit actual sins at some point in the future, but are not held personally responsible for the original sin of Adam.
2) Participation vs. Imputation
The means of transmission has been an issue of contention and speculation since the 4th century. Augustine held the position that all of humanity was 'seminally' present in Adam's loins and therefore actually participated in the crime. In other words, we were all physically present in the garden with Adam and committed the crime with him. For obvious reasons, this view is no longer widely held. The more prominent view among contemporary Reformed Evangelicals is that Adam functioned as the "Federal Head" or representative for all of humanity. As our federal head, the guilt of original sin was imputed to all of us by God so that we are implicated in Adam's sin.
3) Immediate Imputation vs. Mediate Imputation
Some have held that the guilt of original sin is imputed immediately to the child from the moment of conception, while others hold that the guilt of original sin is imputed mediately to the child as soon as (s)he commits the first conscious act of sin. With respect to the issue of infant salvation, mediate imputation appears to offer a certain degree of comfort since is makes it possible to believe that all infants who are miscarried or who die in infancy are innocent in God's eyes and therefore not liable to condemnation. Unfortunately, mediate imputation does not offer comfort to parents of children over the age of 1 or 2.
4) Baptismal Regeneration
Many, Christians historically have held a doctrine of Baptismal regeneration which teaches that the guilt of original sin is washed away through the sacrament of water baptism. Baptized children who died in infancy and are expunged of original sin would go directly to heaven, while unbaptized children would either go to hell, or to limbo where the punishment is minimal. Others have speculated that unbaptized children will be given an opportunity to hear the gospel after death. 'Postmortem evangelism' has been an attractive option in recent years for a number of Evangelicals (particularly of the Arminian persuasion) who wish to offer some kind of pastoral comfort to grieving parents. The surface comfort of this position loses much of its force, however, when the grieving parent comes to realize that there are no guarantees that their child will not reject the gospel in the next life and still spend eternity separated from Christ.
Personal Reflections and Conclusions:
My own theological convictions as a Reformed Baptist makes the issue of infant salvation quite challenging to resolve on pastoral level. I am a federal theologian who accepts immediate imputation and denies Baptismal Regeneration. I see absolutely no compelling evidence for postmortem evangelism in Scripture and even if I did, I do not believe that it is a comforting doctrine. Furthermore, I find most of the common proof-texts such as the example of David's son fairly inconclusive. As mentioned above, they are about as convincing for me as the Roman Catholic contention that Matt 12:32 is a canonical reference to Purgatory. Does this mean that all children who do not live long enough to make a profession of faith are automatically condemned to a Christless eternity? I will conclude this post with some personal reflections and tentative conclusions on this subject:
1) It is critical to maintain a robust doctrine of original sin regardless of where you fall on this issue. Children and infants, like all of us are totally depraved, guilty and liable for judgment from the moment of conception. We are not "born innocent" as Sarah McLachlan would have us believe. God cannot merely overlook or forgive sin in a child because that would be a travesty of justice and a violation of His own essential character. To say that God can forgive a person (adult or child) apart from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is closer to an Islamic worldview than it is to Biblical Christianity. If God can forgive anyone He wants, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus becomes superfluous.
2) I reject any form of baptismal regeneration as a form of works righteousness that denies sola fide and compromises the heart of the gospel. References in the NT that appear to teach baptismal regeneration are better understood as instances of 'metonymy' since Christian conversion is a cluster of events with terms that are often used interchangeably by the NT authors even though they must be distinguished theologically.
3) I accept that God can regenerate a person apart from faith if He chooses to do so. The one clear example of this that I see in Scripture is John the Baptist who appears to have been regenerate from his mother's womb. Although God does not normally work this way with adults since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God", it is at least theoretically possible for Him to regenerate any person that he chooses at any time He chooses on the basis of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Technically, this is a form of Evangelical inclusivism which places me on a slippery slope. If I concede that God could regenerate an infant through Christ apart from personal faith, theological consistency demands that I also concede that He could ini theory regenerate an adult apart from faith should He chose to do so. The danger of this view is that it opens the door to universalism and more radical forms of inclusivism. The strong monergistic emphasis that lies at the heart of Reformed theology (ie. the view that salvation is all of God's initiative and none of our own) has historically caused a number of Reformed theologians to slide toward a form of universalism or radical inclusivism (ie. Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Karl Barth, etc.).
4) In conclusion, I tend to agree with Spurgeon, Warfield and many other Reformed theologians that all young children and infants are among God's elect and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism or an explicit profession of faith in Christ. Historically, many Conservative Presbyterians have held a modified version of this teaching by restricting election to the children of believers on the basis of covenant theology and the exegetically disputed 1 Cor 7:14. Although this view will be comforting to believing parents who have lost a child, it makes no guarantees whatsoever to the children of non-believers.
I will readily admit that there are no crystal clear verses in Scripture that demonstrate that all children are among the elect, but there are a number of verses that do seem to hint at it in a very vague way. Spurgeon once preached a very helpful sermon on this topic entitled "Infant Salvation" where he outlines most of the pertinent passages: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm Ultimately, our responsibility as parents is to consistently preach the gospel to our children from a young age, to pray earnestly for their salvation and to call them to repentance and faith when they are intellectually capable of making an informed response. Beyond this, they are in the hands of our loving and sovereign God who will act justly.
5) Although I wish that Scripture was more clear on this particular issue, I feel that my case is strong enough to give parents who have lost a child some theological basis for assurance that their child is present with the Lord. Ultimately, I would want to point them to character of God and give them assurance that He is good, just and worthy of our trust.
6) Everything said above with respect to Infant Salvation also could be applied to individuals born with various mental or developmental incapacities that would prevent them from understanding the gospel message.
Friday, November 18, 2011
St. Augustine's Confessions - A Neoplatonic Quest (Book VII)
After a few months away from blogging, I finally have some extra time to devote to finishing up my thoughts on the Confessions. This past year, I've been digging deeply into Augustine's theology and am currently finishing up a grad seminar on his 1200 page magnum opus, the City of God. Reading Augustine first-hand over the past year has been extremely rewarding and edifying on a number of levels. It's enabled me to see Calvin, the Reformers and the Evangelical tradition in a whole new light - we are far more indebted to Augustine than we think. It's also forced me to go further back and read Plato and Aristotle which in turn has given me more insight into the philosophical underpinnings of the NT and the historical backdrop of the Patristic era. Like Augustine, many of the Church Fathers were disciples of Plato before they were disciples of Christ (and many of them remained steadfast admirers of Plato and Socrates post-conversion!) In certain ways, the Christian worldview which captured Rome by the 4th century, provided fresh answers to very ancient and vexing philosophical problems. For most Patristic theologians, Platonism and Christianity seemed to be two very complimentary systems of thought. So respected was Plato well into the Reformation era that Ulrich Zwingli, the father of the Reformed tradition and forerunner to Calvin, contended in a letter to King Francis that Plato and Socrates (both pagans) were in heaven alongside the Saints!! (A statement that only served to increase Luther's dislike of his Swiss counterpart).
Book VII of the Confessions reveals the fact that Augustine's conversion to Christianity in the Milan Garden (Book VIII) may best be understood as several mini-conversions, the first of which was a 'philosophical' conversion. This initial conversion was from Gnostic Manichaeism with its dualistic ontology to Greek Platonism with its sharp distinction between body and soul. Manichaeism, with its emphasis on the material world had blinded Augustine to the existence of immaterial spiritual substance, and so he laments the fact that he was for a time "unable to think of any substance possible other than that which the eyes normally perceive." (VII.i.1) Because of this, Augustine, the Manichean gnostic, could only conceive of God in strictly materialist terms: "Although you were not in the shape of the human body, I nevertheless felt forced to imagine something physical occupying space diffused either in the world or even through infinite space outside the world...I thought that anything from which space was abstracted was non-existence, indeed absolutely nothing." (VII.i.1)
Augustine's gnostic worldview which reduced everything to the level of physical matter, created a major philosophical dilemma when it came to explaining the origin and existence of evil: "Certainly the greatest and supreme Good made lesser goods; yet the Creator and all that he created are good. What then is the origin of evil? Is it that the matter from which he made things was somehow evil?... Was he powerless to turn and transform all matter so that no evil remained, even though God is omnipotent?" (VII.v.7) For Augustine, the undeniable presence of evil in the world called into question either the omnipotence of God on the one hand, or the aseity of God on the other (ie. that He was assisted in creation by matter which He himself did not create). Neither alternative was particularly attractive to the young philosopher who was seeking for truth.
In his attempt to discover an answer to the problem of evil, Augustine for a brief time entertained astrology as a possible solution. In the end, however, he concluded that the astrology of the pagans, with its fatalistic determinism did not solve the problem of evil either since it could not adequately explain the very different fate of twins who were born under the same sign: "You my helper, delivered me in this way from those chains. I was seeking the origin of evil and here was no solution." (VII.vii.11) For Augustine, astrologers were little more than opportunistic charlatans who preyed on sheer ignorance. (He would probably be amazed that people are still reading horoscopes in the 21st century!!!)
The problem, Augustine finally concluded, was that "I was fixing my attention on things contained in space". He goes on to add that "the very images of physical objects formed an obstacle to my return." (VII.vii.11) Augustine was only able to reach this conclusion with the help of the Platonist philosophers (Plotinus and Porphyry), whose books had been translated from Greek into Latin. These books Augustine viewed as an integral part of his return to Christ: "By the Platonic books I was admonished to return into myself. With you as my guide I entered into my innermost citadel, and was given power to do so because you had become my helper." (VII.x.16) In spite of the progress he made through secular philosophy, Augustine found himself still very far away from God in what he described as "the region of dissimilarity." (VII.x.16) Although the Platonists expressed many truths that were fully congruent with Christianity, they omitted the key elements of Christian faith, specifically the incarnation and atoning work of Christ on the cross: "Again I read [in the Platonists] that the Word, God, is 'born not of the flesh, nor of blood, nor of tthe will of man nor of the will of the flesh but of God'. But that 'the word was made flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:13-14), I did not read there." (VII ix.14)
Although the Platonists didn't offer solutions to Augustine's deepest spiritual need, they did offer him a new ontology with which to view and interpret the world. First, he was enabled to see that God is immaterial - a Spirit without a physical body of any kind. With this breakthrough, Augustine concluded that God made everything, and that everything He made was indeed very good. Evil is not a principle which exists apart from God, neither was it created by God. Evil, Augustine eventually concluded, is the privation of good and the corruption of a good nature created by a good God: "Accordingly, whatever things exist are good, and the evil into whose origins I was inquiring is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good." (VII.xii.18) "For you evil does not exist at all, and not only for you, but for your created universe, because there is nothing outside it which could break in and destroy the order which you have imposed upon it." (VII.xiii.19) The notion of evil as privation, has been an enduring aspect of the Augustinian legacy and enables Christian theologians to the present day to give a rational account of evil without implicating God as its author. The ultimate origin of evil, Augustine would eventually conclude, is in the human will, which chooses lesser goods instead of the greatest Good.
The philosophy of the Neo-Platonists ultimately enabled Augustine to move beyond his shortsighted gnostic view of God. Finally, he was able to see God in immaterial terms but he was still not yet a Christian: "I was certain that you are infinite without being infinitely diffused through finite space... Of these conceptions I was certain: but to enjoy you I was too weak." (VII.xx.26) Augustine was later to express his thankfulness to God for exposing him to Platonist philosophy at this point in his spiritual journey, which he viewed as an essential step in his conversion: "I believe that you wanted me to encounter [the Platonists] before I came to study your scriptures...For if I had first been formed in mind by your holy books, and if you had made me know your sweetness by familiarity with them, and then I had thereafter met those volumes [of the Platonists], perhaps they would have snatched me away from the solid foundation of piety." (VII.xx.26) Augustine's initial conversion from gnosticism to Neo-Platonism propelled him forward in his quest for truth and gave him a new motivation to pick up and read the Scripture which he had long despised: "With avid intensity I seized the sacred writings of your Spirit and especially the apostle Paul...I began reading and found that all the truth I had read in the Platonists was stated here together with the commendation of your grace."(VII. xxi.27)
Augustine's experience as outlined above raises the issue of Natural Theology and General Revelation. Although Scripture is absolutely indispensable for our salvation because we cannot experience a relationship with God apart from knowledge about the perfect life, atoning death and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, we should not deny that God has revealed many aspects of truth outside of the Bible. Indeed there are many incredible truths about God that we can learn from secular philosophy and from the natural sciences. Another way to say this that I think Augustine would readily have affirmed in his own day is that 'all truth is God's truth.' Although we dare not construct a full-blown Natural Theology that postulates salvation outside of personal faith in Christ, we ought not to automatically discount the many wonderful insights that we can get into God's good creation through modern science and philosophy. True - the Fall has distorted our ability to reason accurately and to perceive truth in creation - but it has not completely destroyed it! This was the position of both Augustine and the Reformers, and most importantly, was the position of Paul himself in Romans who held that General Revelation in both nature and the human conscience will render humanity without excuse before the Creator on the day of judgment.
Book VII of the Confessions reveals the fact that Augustine's conversion to Christianity in the Milan Garden (Book VIII) may best be understood as several mini-conversions, the first of which was a 'philosophical' conversion. This initial conversion was from Gnostic Manichaeism with its dualistic ontology to Greek Platonism with its sharp distinction between body and soul. Manichaeism, with its emphasis on the material world had blinded Augustine to the existence of immaterial spiritual substance, and so he laments the fact that he was for a time "unable to think of any substance possible other than that which the eyes normally perceive." (VII.i.1) Because of this, Augustine, the Manichean gnostic, could only conceive of God in strictly materialist terms: "Although you were not in the shape of the human body, I nevertheless felt forced to imagine something physical occupying space diffused either in the world or even through infinite space outside the world...I thought that anything from which space was abstracted was non-existence, indeed absolutely nothing." (VII.i.1)
Augustine's gnostic worldview which reduced everything to the level of physical matter, created a major philosophical dilemma when it came to explaining the origin and existence of evil: "Certainly the greatest and supreme Good made lesser goods; yet the Creator and all that he created are good. What then is the origin of evil? Is it that the matter from which he made things was somehow evil?... Was he powerless to turn and transform all matter so that no evil remained, even though God is omnipotent?" (VII.v.7) For Augustine, the undeniable presence of evil in the world called into question either the omnipotence of God on the one hand, or the aseity of God on the other (ie. that He was assisted in creation by matter which He himself did not create). Neither alternative was particularly attractive to the young philosopher who was seeking for truth.
In his attempt to discover an answer to the problem of evil, Augustine for a brief time entertained astrology as a possible solution. In the end, however, he concluded that the astrology of the pagans, with its fatalistic determinism did not solve the problem of evil either since it could not adequately explain the very different fate of twins who were born under the same sign: "You my helper, delivered me in this way from those chains. I was seeking the origin of evil and here was no solution." (VII.vii.11) For Augustine, astrologers were little more than opportunistic charlatans who preyed on sheer ignorance. (He would probably be amazed that people are still reading horoscopes in the 21st century!!!)
The problem, Augustine finally concluded, was that "I was fixing my attention on things contained in space". He goes on to add that "the very images of physical objects formed an obstacle to my return." (VII.vii.11) Augustine was only able to reach this conclusion with the help of the Platonist philosophers (Plotinus and Porphyry), whose books had been translated from Greek into Latin. These books Augustine viewed as an integral part of his return to Christ: "By the Platonic books I was admonished to return into myself. With you as my guide I entered into my innermost citadel, and was given power to do so because you had become my helper." (VII.x.16) In spite of the progress he made through secular philosophy, Augustine found himself still very far away from God in what he described as "the region of dissimilarity." (VII.x.16) Although the Platonists expressed many truths that were fully congruent with Christianity, they omitted the key elements of Christian faith, specifically the incarnation and atoning work of Christ on the cross: "Again I read [in the Platonists] that the Word, God, is 'born not of the flesh, nor of blood, nor of tthe will of man nor of the will of the flesh but of God'. But that 'the word was made flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:13-14), I did not read there." (VII ix.14)
Although the Platonists didn't offer solutions to Augustine's deepest spiritual need, they did offer him a new ontology with which to view and interpret the world. First, he was enabled to see that God is immaterial - a Spirit without a physical body of any kind. With this breakthrough, Augustine concluded that God made everything, and that everything He made was indeed very good. Evil is not a principle which exists apart from God, neither was it created by God. Evil, Augustine eventually concluded, is the privation of good and the corruption of a good nature created by a good God: "Accordingly, whatever things exist are good, and the evil into whose origins I was inquiring is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good." (VII.xii.18) "For you evil does not exist at all, and not only for you, but for your created universe, because there is nothing outside it which could break in and destroy the order which you have imposed upon it." (VII.xiii.19) The notion of evil as privation, has been an enduring aspect of the Augustinian legacy and enables Christian theologians to the present day to give a rational account of evil without implicating God as its author. The ultimate origin of evil, Augustine would eventually conclude, is in the human will, which chooses lesser goods instead of the greatest Good.
The philosophy of the Neo-Platonists ultimately enabled Augustine to move beyond his shortsighted gnostic view of God. Finally, he was able to see God in immaterial terms but he was still not yet a Christian: "I was certain that you are infinite without being infinitely diffused through finite space... Of these conceptions I was certain: but to enjoy you I was too weak." (VII.xx.26) Augustine was later to express his thankfulness to God for exposing him to Platonist philosophy at this point in his spiritual journey, which he viewed as an essential step in his conversion: "I believe that you wanted me to encounter [the Platonists] before I came to study your scriptures...For if I had first been formed in mind by your holy books, and if you had made me know your sweetness by familiarity with them, and then I had thereafter met those volumes [of the Platonists], perhaps they would have snatched me away from the solid foundation of piety." (VII.xx.26) Augustine's initial conversion from gnosticism to Neo-Platonism propelled him forward in his quest for truth and gave him a new motivation to pick up and read the Scripture which he had long despised: "With avid intensity I seized the sacred writings of your Spirit and especially the apostle Paul...I began reading and found that all the truth I had read in the Platonists was stated here together with the commendation of your grace."(VII. xxi.27)
Augustine's experience as outlined above raises the issue of Natural Theology and General Revelation. Although Scripture is absolutely indispensable for our salvation because we cannot experience a relationship with God apart from knowledge about the perfect life, atoning death and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, we should not deny that God has revealed many aspects of truth outside of the Bible. Indeed there are many incredible truths about God that we can learn from secular philosophy and from the natural sciences. Another way to say this that I think Augustine would readily have affirmed in his own day is that 'all truth is God's truth.' Although we dare not construct a full-blown Natural Theology that postulates salvation outside of personal faith in Christ, we ought not to automatically discount the many wonderful insights that we can get into God's good creation through modern science and philosophy. True - the Fall has distorted our ability to reason accurately and to perceive truth in creation - but it has not completely destroyed it! This was the position of both Augustine and the Reformers, and most importantly, was the position of Paul himself in Romans who held that General Revelation in both nature and the human conscience will render humanity without excuse before the Creator on the day of judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)