C.S. Lewis and total depravity

Dubai

Within thekingpin68 blog, I have shared concepts from my PhD work. I thought for something different I would share two sections from my MPhil dissertation degree, which was also concerning the problem of evil. I realize that C.S. Lewis is quite popular and I reviewed his work on the problem of evil for my 2003 dissertation degree, which is like a mini-PhD in the United Kingdom academic system. I present two sections of my review and the second section concerns the topic of total depravity.

The entire MPhil can be found in the January 2006 archives and the link below:

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

C.S. Lewis and total depravity

British born, Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a world renowned British writer whose theological literary works have been influential within Christian apologetics. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, describes Lewis’ beginnings and places of study.

Anglican scholar-novelist and Christian Apologist, perhaps best known for his literary fantasies that explore theological concepts. Born near Belfast in Northern Ireland, he received his B.A. from University College, Oxford, in 1924, and was fellow and tutor in English literature at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1925 until 1954. He then accepted the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. Hein (1996: 630).

Lewis pointed out some definite examples of human wickedness in his era and culture; however, he rejected the idea of Total Depravity. He stated:

This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve the doctrine, partly on the logical grounds that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Lewis (1940)(1996: 61).

I can see the logic of Lewis’ point of view; however, I don’t agree with his conclusions. I will first give the comments of C.C. Ryrie and then explain my perspective.

The concept of total depravity does not mean

(1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man’s or God’s sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean

(2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been effected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean

(3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible.

Positively total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man’s nature, to his being: and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favour with God. Ryrie (1996: 312).

I would think Lewis did not significantly understand the doctrine. Ryrie’s first point answers Lewis’ objection. The doctrine is not about humanity being so evil that no good is possible. The point is that these good works can in no way earn salvation. As well, with Ryrie’s second point, humanity could acknowledge the existence of sin and evil in them because they still had a conscience, although it was scarred. Also, the depravity is not total in the sense of every aspect of evil in people being maximized, it means instead that humanity is corrupt to the point where salvation cannot be merited.

I think Ryrie explains the concept well, and understands it, unlike Lewis. However, I wonder if human beings can commit truly good acts, like both men suggest. I would think since humanity is totally depraved that no true human good is possible. If true goodness is found in perfection, as is God, then we cannot obtain that good. Even as Christians that attempt to perform the will of God with the help of the Holy Spirit, would there not be just a little taint of sin in all our actions? It is my view that human good is likely an absence of a complete maximization of our total depravity. I, for example, may appear to be humanly good compared to a serial murderer; however, that is because the murderer has been found out as someone who has committed heinous crimes, where as Lewis pointed out with an individual, my evil can be hidden in public persona.

HEIN, R. (1996) C.S. Lewis, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

RYRIE, C.C. (1996) Total Depravity, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.


Dubai


Dubai

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/recent-short-comments-on-society.html

Religious superiority?

Burnaby BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Jurgen Moltmann writes that the resurrection message of the early Christian community was the anticipation of what was to come. Moltmann (1993: 177). The resurrection of Christ created the hope for the eventual world of a new righteousness. Moltmann (1993: 177). Robert Mounce explains that in the new heaven and new earth the life of the believer will be transformed in completion. Mounce (1990: 388). Believers will share the likeness of God, and this will be a life of moral perfection. John Calvin explains that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6). God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin, thus bringing a new humanity, which was a new creation. Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6). This human restoration and rebirth would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality. Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

Christians of all theological groups that trust in the Biblical God and Christ for salvation can reason that they shall be part of the finalized Kingdom of God. Salvation is a work of God as Christ completed the atoning work and resurrection and believers simply receive the gospel in grace through divine guided faith. Believers are saved by grace through faith, and not through self, as it is a gift from God, as Ephesians 2:8 explains. Ephesians 2:9 notes persons are not saved by works and that no one should boast. Verse 10 reasons that followers as the workmanship of God, should produce good works. Christians are sinners (Romans 1, 2, 3:23, 6:23) that by nature and choice cannot please God by their own power. Salvation since believers are not as of yet resurrected, is a process, although persons in Christ are saved. Christians are at this point therefore imperfect, and even while guided by God this imperfection certainly would be reflected in life, including theology.

Do I ask the Lord that my theology be always correct? Yes. Is it? Well, I think usually the Lord guides me to the truth the first time, but sometimes within God’s will it takes some time and thought to have a better understanding of theology, in particular secondary issues outside of salvific and nature of God doctrines. The need for theological development within a Christian life, and overall spiritual progress to me demonstrates that Christians, even if adhering to Biblical essentials should take a humble approach in theological interaction with others, both Christian and non-Christian.

I have been within the Christian community since 1988 as an adult. I must first state that most of my interaction with Christians both on and off-line has been positive, and so I am not broad-brushing the Christian community here. Without attempting to judge any hearts and motives, I am concerned by the possible attitudes of religious superiority or spiritual superiority, if you prefer, which, I have come across over the last twenty years. I have had pastors who are focused on evangelism and missions work that negate me as a theology student, and now theologian, as some seem to view academic theology as too abstract an unimportant. They somewhat fail to realize that academics and theologians deal with theological issues in order that this information filters down to evangelism and missions work. 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 notes that there are different types of members within the community of Christ in regard to duties, and I see teachers are on the list. Certainly it can be reasoned that some of those teachers should be able to teach and reason at an academic level in order to assist the Christian community.

At a Christian University, I had an advisor who seemingly did not like the fact that I pushed for top grades and desired to be a philosophical theologian and not a pastor, and he appeared to lose interest in advising me properly with my dissertation project. He would strongly criticize many other Christian academics and told me that I listened too much to the previous theologian that he had replaced. My advisor left the University for another job and provided a negative note concerning my work for the review board. Having followed all his instructions, the project did not go as well as I hoped, but I did manage to have the note removed from my record. The University informed me that my former advisor has no experience as an advisor. His actions and attitude demontsrated a possible aura of religious/spiritual superiority over me as if should give up academics and pursue something else. He told the review board I could not do the work. Thankfully, by advancing to a higher level degree and completing a distance learning MPhil dissertation on the problem of evil as a moderate conservative in a liberal institution, with no revisions after making, and no local advisor, I have proven him wrong. God willing, when I pass my PhD dissertation with similar circumstances he shall be proved wrong again, and all my chapters have been accepted by my advisor so far. I am not bragging here, and I would not succeed without God’s guidance and the help of good advisors, but my point is that this Christian advisor would not properly assist me and it very well could be because of an attitude of religious/spiritual superiority. Although we agreed on primary issues and I was an A grade student, he for whatever reasons through his actions and lack of proper assistance caused my career aspirations to come under attack. With my first PhD appointment in England, my advisor was away for a year and the professors there who are religious, but not likely mainly Biblical Christians, forced me out of the department because I would not give up on the idea that God created the world, and the problem of evil existed. They too stated I could not do the work, and they too have been proven wrong…thank God.

Through blogging, I have been disturbed by the dogmatism of a small minority of Reformed blogs that have few links and portray an attitude of religious superiority as if Reformed doctrine is basically equal to Biblical doctrine authority wise. I am a Reformed theologian with some Baptist leanings that is pleased to be a member of a Presbyterian Church, but there is room for debate on secondary issues. On my blogs I take strong Reformed stances on theodicy, free will and sovereignty, but I try to write and interact in a loving and respectful way in order to promote dialogue with those with differing perspectives. I will always be a student first and a teacher second, and so there is room to humbly consider other perspectives, even if I know I will likely not change my mind on certain issues. Lately, I have also been troubled by the minority of Christian blogs I have visited that join BlogRush and then will not even publish my comments on their blog. I am looking for new readers, commenters, and links and one should at least respectfully publish my comment even if my theology is not his/her cup of tea. I do not expect everyone to desire to link with me.

All Christians are to share in the eventual culminated Kingdom and so let us interact respectfully and with an open-mind concerning secondary issues with our brothers and sisters of different Christian camps. Those with very dogmatic largely non-interactive approaches and blogs miss opportunities to share their perspectives and possibly influence others in thought, due to their closed-minded approach.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Grand Rapids, Wheaton College.
http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

MOLTMANN, JURGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


Burnaby BC (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/space-real-and-phony.html

Impassibility: Does God suffer?

Bavaria, Hohenschwangau Castle (photo from trekearth.com)

The section from the link below offers interesting advice and relates to why I blog on related PhD material. In my case, on thekingpin68, the material is somewhat altered from what will be presented to Wales. A fear of Universities forbidding publication of material related to theses seems likely unwarranted and is not a good reason to avoid posting, for if one blogs on similar material, one can prove originality and the date published. Blogging on a topic before PhD publication can likely only help the process and I am already publicly sharing the concepts with the questionnaire.

http://rdrop.com/~paulmck/personal/PartTimePhDAdvice.html

Publish as You Go

You must be the first person to cover your topic, otherwise, your work does not qualify as a Ph.D. There are more people pursuing doctorates than there have been at any time in the past, and there is some truth to the old adage that great minds think alike. I have talked to a number of people who worked hard on their dissertation, only to find that someone else beat them to the punch, sometimes by a matter of months. And they were working on it full time!
If you are doing your doctorate part time, you will take longer to get it done. Therefore, you are more likely to be beaten to the punch. But if you publish your findings in an appropriate forum as you go, you have "laid your claim" to that portion of your work before completing work on your dissertation. Once you have published part of your work in a suitable forum, no one can take that part of your work away from you.

University technical reports are one useful tool, as are the relevant conferences and journals, either print or electronic. But check with your committee before going the electronic-publication route, as not all universities recognize electronic publication. In fact, I have heard rumors of universities forbidding publication prior to completion of the dissertation. So make sure that your committee fully supports "publish as you go".

Impassibility: Does God suffer?

Brian Davies explains that impassibility is the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering. Davies believes it is incorrect to assume that God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation. Davies (1999: 288). For Millard Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture. Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering. He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one. Erickson (1994: 737). Kenneth Surin writes that God is considered by some within traditional Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow. However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought. Surin (1982: 97). It seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions, but it should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Since God is infinite and considered immutable, it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will, cannot change. Thiessen (1956: 127). Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence. Erickson (1994: 274). R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end. Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2). As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.

In contrast, David A Pailin explains that within some process theology approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging. However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation. Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures. Pailin (1999: 469). Process theology according to Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling is a twentieth-century view based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures. God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 95-96).

I see no need to adopt process theology, as God fully understands evil and suffering. In a divine way that cannot be completely humanly understood, God experiences evil and suffering as the infinite, omnipotent God in spiritual nature, and as the God-man, Jesus Christ. Christ suffered as a human being, and in particular died for the sins of persons, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). God does not have to progress or continue a process to understand anything, but made himself particularly relatable to humanity through a process in which Christ became a human being and completed the atoning and resurrection work. God therefore relates to suffering and provides a remedy for evil and suffering which Scripture promises will be culminated at the end of this age.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/stupid-questions.html

The problem of evil, empirical theology, and science

Train ride, Whistler, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Hans-Gunter Heimbrock provides the opinion that since religion and faith is experimental within empirical theology (which uses questionnaires and statistics), the social sciences have been used to examine social dynamics, conditions and contexts of religious life. He reasons that pastoral work has also been assisted in this process. Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Philosophically and theologically from my Reformed perspective, I do not view Christian faith and philosophy as primarily experimental, although I can grant Heimbrock’s point that the social sciences can deal with the existing experimental aspects of religion and assist in understanding. Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Christian doctrines can be examined through the use of questionnaires. The experimental nature of empirical theology can not only lead to a better understanding of practical theology within the Christian Church, but when applied to the problem of evil related questions in my PhD project, can help to explain how the theoretical theories of theologians and philosophers are being understood and accepted by persons that attend church.

If there are misunderstandings and disagreements between professionals and amateurs in regard to the problem of evil, for example, the empirical aspect within my PhD thesis allows for both pastoral work, and theoretical theology to be assisted by feedback from church attendees of various denominations and groups. It should be explained that in my view, and contrary to some within empirical theology, empirical findings do not establish new Christian doctrines, or potentially overturn orthodox Biblical views. Christian doctrine is determined through the use and interpretation of Scripture and should also take precedence over whether or not Biblical doctrines are accepted by persons within questionnaire results.

Professor of philosophy and religion, Karl E. Peters comments in his abstract that empirical theology is in contrast to science in that it seeks to understand the nature and source of human fulfilment, and science seeks to understand the world regardless of the implications of human welfare. Peters (1992: 297-325). Empirical theology is like science in that it affirms naturalism, accepts limitations on human knowledge, and therefore makes all religious knowledge tentative. Peters (1992: 297-325). Both scientific and religious explanations are sought for meaning in life, and a key criterion for justifying ideas is to explain experience and to focus on new research. Peters (1992: 297-325). Within my Reformed perspective there is an acknowledgement that science is dependent on the use of naturalism. Y. Krikorian explains naturalism is part of nature, contains nothing supernatural, and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’. Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1).

C.A. Dubray writes that naturalism is not primarily a special system as much as a view held by many within philosophy and religion. It is not so much a set of positive or negative doctrines, but a general attitude, which influences many ideas. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists, and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature. All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1).

I can accept that science must use natural and not supernatural means and is clearly often a discipline with different methods than theology or philosophy. One should not expect scientific method to be religious in nature. I disagree with Krikorian that science, which tests material matter, can or should be the method by which immaterial spiritual issues are explained. God is spirit in John 4:24, and Biblically would have existed prior to the beginning and creation of matter in Genesis 1. Many Christians of moderate positions and various traditions would disagree with the concept that nature is the fundamental and original source for all that exists, and I disagree with this position as well. James W. Sire notes that there have been theistic critics that have found fault with naturalism. Sire (1977: 74). This was based on the conviction that a personal God was behind the universe and that naturalism in itself did not provide an adequate reason why human beings were valuable. Sire (1977: 74). Human beings are unique, but so were gorillas, and there remained the problem of establishing the value of human beings within naturalism. Sire (1977: 74).

Thiessen explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality, everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature. He comments that Scripture recognizes that existence of the laws of nature, but it is reasoned they do not operate independently of God. Thiessen (1956: 186). God concurs with the laws he has established, and Thiessen reasons that miracles and revelation can occur when God operates outside of laws he established. Thiessen (1956: 186).

With Thiessen’s concept naturalists and moderate Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but Biblical Christians would accept a revealed supernatural source behind nature, that the naturalist would deny. Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1). It can reasoned therefore, that Christians can embrace the similarities science has with empirical theology without a necessary abandonment of the belief that God revealed himself and his plan of salvation within history. Empirical theology within practical approaches can therefore without necessary contradiction, complement philosophical, theology in the context of research concerning the problem of evil and theodicy, which concerns the justice of God within his creation which contains evil.

Am I denying that science can make progress in solving some problems, due to its experimental nature? No, science has made discoveries that have assisted humanity, and has helped persons understand many realities. My Reformed perspective deduces that human corruption cannot be entirely corrected scientifically, but human beings are changed permanently to avoid evil, only by the regenerating work of God. I reason that scientific progress has helped humanity tremendously to live better quality lives, but human beings are capable of committing as grotesque and intense evils as ever in the 21st Century. This is so, in my view, because scientific knowledge has not as of yet been able to change the essential nature of human beings. Even if science could perfect the physical nature of persons to avoid evil actions, as the Bible indicates that human beings have a spirit (Luke 16, Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:2-5) it needs to be considered if materially based science could perfect the human spirit as well to avoid all wrong actions.

This would appear doubtful. Philosophy and theology have assisted human beings throughout history to better understand life, but neither of these disciplines can provide a remedy to the problem of evil, but can help to explain evil and suffering through effective theodicy. The Biblical remedy to the problem of evil is the atoning work of Christ, and his resurrection applied to followers and an ultimately culminated Kingdom of God.

DUBRAY, C.A. (1911)(2007) ‘Naturalism’ in New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm

HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter.http://xolopo.de/religionswissenschaften/data_theory_elements_met
hodology_empirical_15063.html

KRIKORIAN, K. (1944)(2007) (ed.), Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York, Columbia University Press, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

PETERS, KARL, E. (1992) ‘Empirical Theology in the Light of Science, in The Journal of Religion and Science, Volume 27 Issue 3 Page 297-325, September, Oxford, Zygon, Blackwell Publishing.http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9744.1992.tb01068.x

SIRE, JAME W (1975) The Universe Next Door, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Harehills, Leeds, England (photo from trekearth.com)