Astutely, one recent email I received pointed to Original Sin and Free Will as the hard problems. Absolutely, I agree. In truth, the whole essence and fullness of the Reformed doctrines of Justification and Sanctification hinge upon these two elements. If you get Original Sin wrong, or if you gut it of its fullness and the depth of its despairing nature, then you will not in turn receive the fullness and height of the Gospel. Contrast is important. Contrast and extremes help to give some just cause for the extreme measures of the Cross. I have spoken on these issues before, but let’s go in greater depth.
Can one understand Original Sin without "believing in" Adam and Eve? Indeed, was there a historical Adam? In my piece on Genesis and Framework theory, I mentioned the idea of a literary genre that we can call creation genre. If the framework theory is correct, the historical model of creation is what is at issue, not the primary fatherhood of Adam. The Bible has more than one purpose in naming a primary genetic father. The first is the selection of a federal representative of man. But for all intent and purpose, Adam can be the prototype man without being the primary genealogical man. In Romans, Paul suggests that not only would we have made the same mistake as Adam, but that we were there with Adam and did make that mistake. The Original Sin is thus inherited genetically, federally and actually by commission by all man. But the historic Adam is also important in establishing the human line that will become the royal family. Abram is a direct descendant from Adam and these genealogies are important in the Old Testament as they lead to the connection to Jesus as shown in Matthew 1. But since the Matthew 1 genealogy begins with Abraham, it can be argued that Adam's primacy in this regard is less important. The conditional covenant with Adam is not the covenant of Grace that begins with Abraham. Therefore, the genealogical ties of Jesus to Adam are less important than those same ties to Abraham, with whom the Covenant of Grace was cut. Whether you believe in the primacy of Adam is not nearly as important as accepting the federal representation of Adam in the creation story.
The free will question becomes one of definition. We all know that we make decisions. Our days are full of decisions from the mundane to the relatively important. A decision is an exercise in selection based upon our mind assessing the best option. The criteria for this decision are evaluation of the options based upon moral and secular values as well as any other determinant known to our minds. The issue then is one of defining the mind. If the mind is inseparable from the body both physically and in our definition of what it is to be human, then free will is nothing but the exercise of making a decision. The moral scale and values upon which a decision is made are determined by the perception of what is moral or what has secular value by the mind. Since the mind is inseparable from the body in the condition we call human, then free will is also bound up in this formula. If the body and therefore also the mind are contained with the set of things that are human, then they along with free will are in the set of things human that are in Adam. This is how reformed theology views free will. Because the basis of the exercise of free will is the constructs that are formulated from observation by the mind, then the decision process that is free will is also within the boundaries of what is human, and therefore subject to being in Adam and under the curse.
The Law is considered as being imprinted upon us by natural revelation, which is that all men have an inherent knowledge of morals and the Law. This is why Adam can be said to be in Covenant relationship with God in Eden. The Law is known to all man without having it specifically spelled out to him. The Law is a conditional covenant that Adam breaks in Eden. Adam was made capable of fulfilling the Law. In fact, it can be said that Adam, and through Adam all men, experienced the only moment of uncorrupted free will in history. But Sin does enter the world through Adam.
There is an inherent relationship between creator and creature that the creature must obey the creator. Disobedience is breaking of the inherent Law covenant between them. The creature is created fully capable of fulfilling the Law, but fails. Because Adam is prototype, or federal representative, we all fail. The Law that is written into the heart of man is articulated at Sinai, which is actually just a reiteration and documentation of natural revelation. Special revelation is used for the Gospel or Covenant of Grace. Special revelation implies that it is not inherently known to all man, but instead must be learned specifically. This has particular importance to the whole formula of redemption. While all man may exercise free will, and choose to ignore or suppress God, as these are the only options he can make on his own after the fall, special revelation allows man to receive the gift of Grace. God through the Holy Spirit actively chooses some for election by special revelation while passively passing over others who remain dead in natural revelation and sin. Therefore, the active agent in salvation of the elect is the Holy Spirit, while the active agent in the reprobate is the free will of man. This is as close as I can come to Luther’s position on this, and I think that it still reflects the reformed position as well.
This whole post is going to get the hackles up of literalistic interpreters of Genesis 1-3. This insistence upon a young earth literalism that drives the dispensational view of the Bible runs aground in several places in the discussion of eschatology. Kim Riddlebarger develops this theme quite thoroughly in his book A Case for Amillennialism. The argument that is made is that only a literalistic handling of this passage preserves the authority of scripture. Most Reformed theologians do not view it this way. Since it is doubtful that first century Jews viewed their oral history in this manner, it does seem logical to view the text as creation genre which is more consistent with the oral tradition as discussed by Jewish scholars. The authority of scripture is not compromised because the presentation is intended to accomplish giving a federal account of the fall of man. This is all that I believe this passage attempts to do and therefore its authority is completely intact. You can get lost in genesis 1-2 arguments, and many people do. The whole summer on the blogosphere seemed dedicated to this debate. In the framework theory, the big event is not the nuts and bolts of creation, but the order in creation. By this, I do not mean chronological order, but order in opposition to chaos. This leads to the big event, the fall, in Genesis 3. How you view Genesis 3 and 15 will determine how you read the rest of the Bible and how you construct your theology.
And so we come to the final question, has Troll quickly dismissed free will as corrupt? No, I don’t think that man comes to the necessary revelation of this corruption easily. One of the great moments in the New Testament is Paul discovering that his self righteousness as a Pharisee is a mere shadow of the righteousness required by God for salvation. The idea that the heart is corrupt is a thread throughout the whole Old Testament and particularly the Prophets. But Paul brings this down like a 16 ton weight in Romans 3. There is no conclusion possible concerning free will except that free will is corrupted by the fall after reading this passage. No, dear reader, Troll did not accept this knowledge easily. The full measure of the 16 tons was required to bring that home.
--Troll--
No comments:
Post a Comment