R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 1 Taken from "Reconsidering Tulip" by Alexander J. Renault
"The immediate concomitant of the first sin was the total depravity of human
nature. The contagion of his sin at once spread through the entire man, lea
ving no part of his nature untouched, but vitiating every power and faculty
of body and soul." Louis Berkhof
The ontological problem with Total depravity is with the word "nature." Acco
rding to Total depravity, our very nature has changed. But what is a nature?
In technical terms,"nature" refers to the essence of something-that which m
akes a thing a thing at its deepest level.
The early church Fathers used the term ousia for nature or essence. God is o
ne nature (ousia) and three persons. Christ and the Father are of the same o
usia. The incarnate Christ has two natures-human and divine.
So, if humans are intrinsically sinful in their essence (i.e. "sinful nature
"), then God created sin. The Reformed will of course argue, "No, man was cr
eated with a good nature, but that nature changed." But how can a nature cha
nge? A nature is the definition of a thing, and can only be defined by the o
ne who creates the thing. What is the nature of a brick, for example? It's a
small, rectangular, hand-held fire-baked building block. If a single brick
is broken, it doesn't change the definition of brick nature. even if someone
destroys every brick in the world, that still doesn't change the definition
of what a brick is. It doesn't change brick nature. A man cannot change his
nature any more than a brick could change its nature. Only God can change t
he nature/definition/essence of a thing. But to do so would make God the aut
hor of sin. . . . . . . | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 2 To take it to a more personal level, did God make you personally? Did He kni
t you together in your mother's womb? If not, then God is not your creator,
and I suppose it doesn't matter what He thinks. But if He did create you, th
en what kind of nature did He create you with? A good nature, or a sinful na
ture? The answer that the church has historically given is that you are crea
ted with a good nature. You are created in the image of God. You are created
to be an icon of God-a picture of God, here on earth.
But like a gold ring in a pile of manure, we are glorious creatures bound by
sin and corruption. The nature or value of the gold ring doesn't change, ev
en if the environment does. Likewise, it is difficult for our true nature
to be seen when we're buried in a stinking pile of death and rot.
. . . . . Again, if sin is intrinsic to humanity, then Adam wasn't human bef
ore he fell, nor will we be human when we're in heaven, where there will be
no sin. But if sin is foreign to our true nature, foreign to the image of go
d, then it makes little sense to say that we have a "sinful nature" . . . . | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 3 . . . . Another major problem is encountered when we confuse person with na
ture. What is a person? We might say that it is a unique manifestation of a
nature. The early greeks used the term hypostasis for person and ousia for n
ature. Christ is one person (hypostasis) with two natures (ousia). The Trini
ty is one in essence, but with three persons (hypostases). There is only one
human nature (or "humanity") expressed uniquely in six billion different hu
man persons. . . .
. . . The doctrine of Total depravity states that we are "utterly unable to
choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation." T
his is because, as Berkhof says, we have depraved natures, and we only choos
e what our nature dictates. In other words, we cannot help but to choose sin
, because we have a sinful nature. But is choice a function of person or of
nature? do people choose to do things or do natures choose to do things? I b
elieve it's a function of person, not nature.
Think about this idea of person vs. nature with the Trinity: God is one divi
ne nature (ousia) and three persons (hypostases). can "holiness" be separate
d from God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? No, because holiness is an aspec
t of God's nature. It is a natural attribute. Can "incarnation" be separated
from God the Father? Yes. God the Father was not incarnate, but the Son was
. Thus, incarnation is a personal attribute of the second person of the Trin
ity, not a natural attribute shared by all three persons of the godhead. . .
.
. . . . Likewise, sin is a personal attribute and not a natural/essential
one. If our choice to act sinfully was from our nature, then that would imp
ly that all of our actions are simply the result of what our nature dictates
. But the problem with that line of reasoning is that God Himself couldn't h
elp but to create, redeem, etc., because it's His nature and not His persona
l free choice. This would mean that God created the world not because He cho
se to, but because He had to, according to His nature. He saved us not becau
se He chose to, but because He had to, according to His nature. I'm inclined
rather to agree with St. Patrick of Ireland, who said that the lord "gladly
and of His own free will pardoned me." | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 4 We can begin to see how a confusion of person and nature leads to a very lim
ited God with no free choice. . . .
. . . . of vital importance to the discussion on Total depravity, and unfor
tunately all but neglected by most Reformed in my experience, is the doctrin
e of the incarnation. This brings the discussion of human nature out of the
simply anthropological realm and into the christological realm.
The crux of the matter is this: if Christ did not have a human nature, then
He cannot save us. If Christ was fully human, but not fully God, then He ca
nnot bring us up to God. If He is fully God but not fully human, then He can
not come completely down to us and bridge the gap between us and God. The fi
rst several ecumenical councils of the church all dealt with this issue.
It is generally agreed among the Reformed that christ was fully God and full
y human. Unfortunately, the implications of this are not always understood b
y the Reformed. For if Christ is fully human, then He must have a human soul
, a human will, a human mind-in short, a human nature. And yet He was withou
t sin. This tells us that sin is not an integral part of human nature, and t
hat one is still human apart from sin. Otherwise, either 1) christ was just
as sinful as we are, or else 2) christ wasn't fully human and can't really s
ave us.
John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and tr
uth.
heb 2:11, 17 - For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified
are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren …
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might
be a merciful and faithful High priest in things pertaining to God, to make
expiation for the sins of the people.
This Hebrews passage is especially significant regarding christ's
human nature. It says that "in all things" He had to be made human.
And yet He was without sin. This would suggest that "sin nature" is in fact
foreign to true "human nature." |
|
