Dr. Gregg R. Allison

Presented to Dr. Gregg R. Allison Western Seminary Portland, Oregon

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course THS 516: Theology of The Image of God Summer 2007

By Eric Messelt Box #253 2 Table of Contents

Reading Declaration...... 3 Image of God...... 4 Background...... 4 Preliminary Conclusions...... 4 Substantive...... 6 Functional...... 7 Relational...... 8 Eclectic...... 9 Conclusion...... 9 Constitutional Anthropology...... 10 Monism...... 10 Dualism...... 11 Dichotomy...... 11 Cartesian Dualism...... 12 Interacting Dualism...... 12 Trichotomy...... 13 Biblical Data...... 13 Practical Theology Issues...... 14 Cooper’s Holistic Dualism...... 15 Conclusion...... 16 Hereditary Sin...... 16 Augustine-Calvin...... 16 Pelagian...... 17 Semi-Pelagian...... 18 Wesleyanism...... 18 Conclusion...... 19 Plantinga’s Insights...... 19 Insight One – Vandalism of Shalom...... 20 Insight Two – Perversion, Pollution, Disintegration, and Parasites...... 21 Insight Three – Sin is Vibrant...... 22 Insight Four – Sin and Folly...... 22 Conclusion...... 23

3 Reading Declaration

To meet the requirements of this course, I state that I read 97% 1 of the reading list for this course by the 7th of July, 2007.

Eric S. Messelt _Eric S. Messelt______Date: __25Jul2007___

1 I discovered there was a small chapter in Plantinga’s book that I had overlooked. I read that, but not before the 7th of July.

4 Image of God

Background

Much has been made of the fact that the Bible says that it was humanity alone that was created in the image of God.2 Man is unique among all the sentient created order3 in that one aspect. What is ironic is that except for some innate sense that we are superior to the rest of the creatures on the planet, it is not at all obvious what this “Image of God” is that makes us unique.

What is it? How did we get it? And what should we do with it?

Preliminary Conclusions

Whatever it is, we can make some initial conclusions about the human expression of the

Image of God.

 It is both reflexive and unique. Whatever the image of God might be, there are two things

it must first be. The first thing is that the image of God must be reflexive; that is, it must

be something that is true for both God and humans. The second thing is that, as referred

to above, it must be – among all other creatures - unique to humanity.4

 It is good. Whatever else the image of God might be for humans, it is a good thing. First,

because it has something to do with God and God is all good. Second, after the creation

God declared everything to be in a state of goodness, including humanity’s status as

being in his image.5

 It is pervasive. Whatever the image of God is, it exists or is true for all people at all times.

2 Gen. 1:26-27. 3 The writer includes angels, humanity, and most of the animal kingdom in this phrase. 4 It must be said that most early thinking about what the image of God is revolved around these two matters. The “Search for the Real Image” therefore became more of a philosophical exercise rather than an exercise in Biblical Theology. 5 Gen. 1:31; 1Tim. 4:4.

5 Adam was still in God’s image6 after the Fall.7 Murder victims (regardless of their

relative righteousness or sinfulness) were said to be bearers of God’s image.8 And the

New Testament condemns cursing anyone – again regardless of whether they are a

believer or not – because they are in the image-likeness of God.9

 It is ‘messed up.’ With apologies for using colloquialism, this phrase captures the matter.

In current usage, this idiom is a bit ambiguous. It can mean that either the thing is itself

dysfunctional, corrupt, or broken; or the idiom can mean that the situation or the

environment of the thing is dysfunctional, corrupt, or broken. This writer references the

later usage: the image of God as it is currently in people is dysfunctional, corrupt, and

broken. Writers of a generation prior used terms like: “tainted,” “stained,” or “marred.”

They were rather a genteel lot. One of the easiest doctrines to both objectively and

subjectively verify is that humanity no longer looks very much like God.10

 It is part of Christ. Whatever God’s image means, we are assured that Jesus has it

perfectly. Jesus told Phillip that when people look at Jesus, they see God.11 Paul tells us

that Jesus makes God visible.12 And The Author13 tells us that Jesus is the exact

representation of God.14 Additionally, given that Jesus was fully and perfectly human, we

can recognize that the image of God was not completely lost to humanity, but rather is

integral to what makes a perfect human perfectly human.

6 Gen. 5:1-3. 7 Gen. 3. 8 Gen. 9:6. 9 Jas. 3:9. 10 For biblical support, this writer would like to cite a lengthy passage in scripture: Gen. 3:7 – Rev. 21:1. 11 Jn. 14:8-19. 12 Col. 1:15. 13 This is this writer’s own whimsy showing. For decades this writer has been annoyed at the clumsy attempt to refer to the prophet who wrote the book of Hebrews as “The author of Hebrews.” Rarely these days does one hear that Paul wrote the work – and that is right as the evidence for that is slim and forced. But people just don’t know what to do with that fact. This writer just refers to that person as “The Author” and lets it stand like that. 14 Heb. 1:3.

6  Believers in Jesus are more in the image of God than non-believers. Whatever the image

is, the Bible tells us that regenerate believers15 are given the promise of blessing that they

will be become Christ-like.16 Using an appropriate analogy of transitive properties, if

Jesus is the exact representation of God, and believers are to become like Jesus, then

Christians have the sure promise of regaining that image back.17 This work is progressive

in the life of a believer being both a work of cooperation18 and being empowered and

directed by the indwelling Holy Spirit.19

Well, all of this is well and good, but does not yet help us understand what the image of God is within the human being. Let us consider that next.

Substantive

Several theologians throughout the Christian Era have suggested that what makes humanity a possessor of the image of God are unique attributes. This is directly related to the implications of “reflexiveness and uniqueness” mentioned above. Several attributes have been candidate for the image of God: rationality, spirituality, morality, and volitional freedom. These are all very attractive candidates. They seem to all be true of both God and humanity. They seem also to not be very much true of other critters.

But, hold on, there’s a couple of flies in the ointment. While nobody would seriously argue that all these are not true of God (reflexive), the “uniqueness” test fails rather miserably.

Why? Well while it may be true that my dog “Spot”20 seems vastly inferior in rationality (low21),

15 Yes, this writer suggests that there can be un-regenerate believers. Jas. 2:19. However, having made this point, for the rest of the paper this writer will equate “believers,” “Christians,” and the like with the regenerate. 16 Rom. 8:29-30. 17 1Cor. 15:47-49; 1Jn. 3:2. 18 Gal. 5:25; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:9-10. 19 2Cor. 3:18. 20 Not her real name.  21 It seems obvious that Spot has rationality in that whenever she hears the leash being gotten off of the hanger she immediately bolts for the front door waiting in devoted expectation of a great blessing to be bestowed

7 spirituality (non-existent?22), morality (low23), and volitional freedom (moderate24); these attributes can all be argued for existing in Spot. The rebuttal comes back, “Ah, yes, but it is in

Mankind where all these attributes are in their highest form within creation. Therefore, as Man is the highest expression of these attributes therefore that makes Mankind unique!” Hold on there,

Rebutter. Let me suggest that angels are a priori ‘spiritual,’25 have a clear sense of right and wrong, and have notoriously exercised volitional capacity.26 Angels are also part of the created order. Angels are never said to have or be God’s image.

In fact, the most current expression of the Substantive view of the image of God is

Millard Erickson. After giving a very impressive textual defense of the substantive view, even

Dr. Erickson actually admits that the Bible does not tell us what substance-attribute that might be.27

Functional

The functional view holds that the image of God is not how humans were made; it is what humans were commanded to do. The holders of this view point to the Cultural Mandate28 and say that just as God is sovereign over all the creation, humanity is given a small slice of that upon her life. 22 Do higher animals have no spiritual capacity? This writer argues that they just might. How else did all the animals show up when it came time for Noah to load the ark? This writer suggests that God was able to direct them. How much does Spot know of YWHW? Maybe there is no conscious thought at all – but maybe there is a glimmer. We just don’t know. We humans, as smart as we are supposed to be, really have very poor communication skills with the other critters within our dominion. 23 Many pet owners observe that pets will obey or disobey based on some other motivation than mere reward and punishment. In our own pet-talk, humans will either anthropomorphize or (arguably) recognize this attribute when we say, “Good Spot!” or, conversely, “Bad dog!” 24 This clearly exists when we place behavioral expectations on our pets. We recognize that Spot can choose to relieve herself either in the area we’ve designated, or on that particular place on the carpet where our feet land first thing in the morning. We expect Spot to be able to make behavioral choices and certainly recognize when Spot’s little will goes contrary to our suppositions. 25 Heb. 1:13-14. 26 Jud. 6. 27 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology 531 (1998, Baker, 2d ed.). 28 Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:6. By this phrase this writer means God’s mandate to humans to create a just society and good civilization. This writer does not indent to connect himself with holders of a Theonomist position.

8 responsibility over all the creatures on this particular planet. Additionally, the holders of this view will point to extra-biblical historical sources such that the image or statue of an ancient king would act as a reminder of a sub-governor’s authority to rule in the king’s name. Textually, holders of this view will point to the proximity of the Cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28) to God’s deliberation to create humans (Gen. 1:26) and the actualization of that plan (Gen. 1:27) in the biblical narrative flow.29

Relational

The relational view was explicated most famously by Karl Barth. He held that God’s social Trinity revealed that God was relational. God therefore gave humanity that relational sense where humans are aware of “I – Thou” interactions not only between any human person and

God, but also between humans.

But this fails the uniqueness test. While we can speculate that “hive” creatures have no individual sense of self, it is clear by observation that herd animals have a sense of both their own identity as well as an identity within the herd. Even in cross-specie relationships, most pet owners will swear that – as far as they are aware of – there is a relationship not only between them and Spot, but also that Spot has an “I – Thou” awareness.30

Eclectic

Anthony Hoekema suggests that there is no need to consider each of these view as being mutually exclusive. He suggests that they are all true – that the image of God is deeper and more

29 One might ask whether the Functional view meets the uniqueness test. Depending on one’s Angelology, are not Angels also given charge of nations and believers? While the issue of guardian angels is very ambiguous, there is no indication that holy Angels are given ‘rule’ over believers; rather, the contrary (Heb. 1:14). As to angels being given charge over nations, the only indication of that concept is with fallen angels (demons) – which is appropriate to the perversity of their fallen state to grasp at the image of God. 30 Spot has been a very good example in this paper. I should give her a treat after it’s completed. Good dog.

9 multi-dimensional than any one of these views. Rather, it is better to acknowledge all of these aspects of the complex of God’s image and especially to consider how they interact and relate to each other. For example, if humanity has been given a Cultural Mandate to subdue the earth, it is also incumbent upon humanity to do so in its three-fold relationship: humanity to God, humanity to itself, and humanity to the rest of nature. Otherwise, suggests Hoekema, humanity could just engage in rank exploitation of the earth’s resources and actually violate a principle of good stewardship.31

Hoekema’s intent is not to be theological peacemaker32 but to emphasize the richness and glory of what God’s image means to humanity.

Conclusion

While Hoekema’s reasoning occasionally seems suspect33 this writer believes that his over-arching theme of the majesty of God’s image is on target. To limit God’s image to only one of three contenders is to unnecessarily hobble the whole counsel of God on the matter of humanity’s constitution, role, and covenantal existence. None of the three models must of necessity exclude the others and there is reasonable textual and rational evidence for all three.34

For that reason, this writer sides with Hoekema’s ‘eclectic’ approach.

Constitutional Anthropology

Humanity, throughout its history in the west has understood that there is more to a human

31 Anthony A. Hoekema, Created In God’s Image, 80 (1986, Eerdmans). 32 “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” The Dodo. Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland (emphasis in the original). 33 “If Louis Berkhof and H. Bavinick think that the image of God is substantive, then that’s good enough for me!” This writer grants that characterization is somewhat unfair, however it has become more than annoying to read Reformed authors expressing more delight in citing other Reformed writers than scripture for their authority. 34 And should some clever young theologian introduce another biblically sound facet to what God’s image is, this writer would be willing to adopt that model as well.

10 than merely their body.35 The question is: how much more?

Monism

Monism is a curious position and can mean a variety of things in current thinking about humanity. The “monist” position can range from a physical reductionism, or “materialism,” which denies any concept of ‘soul’36 or afterlife. This is the view that has been associated with the medical sciences for the last 50 years. The “monist’ term can also incorporate New Age views which see people as having, ultimately, no physical existence – merely “life energy.”

Monism is within Christianity as “Epiphenomenalism” or “Non-reductive physicalism” – once a person dies, they can enter eternal life as God reconstitutes them from his memory. This re- creation becomes their glorified, resurrected body.37 There can also be what this writer will call

Christian phenomenological or pragmatic monism: a reaction against the simplistic split-up-the- parts-of-a-person theology that strongly emphasizes the unity of the human while making only passing reference to two essences.38

The Bible seems very clear that there is more to a human than their mere body. Even

Christians attempting to call “higher capacities” of the brain the functional equivalent to “soul” just can not escape the fact that there is more going on with a human than routine biological and

35 Indeed, in the east there has been a tradition that so strongly affirms this direction that it denies that a human person is a human body at all. 36 This writer will use the word “soul” in quotes to indicate that the word is being used in its popular manner: the immaterial part of a human that contains mind, will, emotion, imagination, memory, et al. and survives physical death. 37 This begs a question: if our glorified-resurrected bodies are discontinuous recreations; and we know that our glorified-resurrected bodies will be like Jesus’ resurrected body (Phil. 3:20-21), then do these authors believe that Jesus had no existence between Bad Friday and Easter morning? 38 Such Pragmatic Monists wish to stay far way from the term “dualism” – even though they are strong- interacting or holistic dualists - because they wish to stress the unity of the human person as a corrective to poor theologies of sanctification, worship, evangelism, et al. Gerry Breshears of Western Seminary is an excellent example of a Pragmatic Monist. Millard Erickson comes the closest to an evangelical monism in his “Conditional Unity” model. While admitting of two essences, like Breshears he wishes to view people in a unified way. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 554-67 (1998, 2nd ed., Baker).

11 material processes.39

The Bible, especially in its Old Testament doctrine of the “grave” (sheol) and the New

Testament doctrine of the Intermediate State, seem crystal clear that there is some existence of the person that survives physical death. The Biblical data stands powerfully against Monism.40

Dualism

“Dualism,” in the context of this paper, will be taken to incorporate any view of the human which affirms more than one essence in human constitution. As discussed above, the biblical data clearly shows that there are, at least, two categories of essence in the human person.

Technically, we clumsily refer to the “immaterial” and the “material.” But this writer yields41 to the popular terms “soul” and “body.”42 Simply put: however many ingredients43 there are to a person, there are at least two.

Dichotomy

Within the umbrella of “dualism” there remains the question: how many things make up a human person? The Dichotomy position states there are two parts-elements and states them as

“body” and “soul.” The Dichotomist position can range from Cartesian to Interacting Dualism.

39 William Hasker attempts to make the analogy to emergent physical properties but in the end, we are still left with something that is ‘more’ than is apparent in the physical system without any explanation of the emergent property. William Hasker, “Emergent Dualism: Challenge to a Materialist Consensus,” What About the Soul?, 101- 16 (2004, Joel Green ed., Abingdon). 40 With the exception of the not-really-monists: the Christian Phenomenological or Pragmatic monists. 41 It is, after all, a sound-bite culture we live in. 42 First, because this writer will eventually come down on the side of duality. But more practically; while this writer is aware of the variety of terminology used in the Bible for body, flesh, heart, spirit, soul, mind, et al.; if this writer had to continue this paper using these technical distinctions, both the writer and the grader would need much more than an espresso to keep going on with the paper. 43 This writer will come down against the notion of separable “parts” to a human person.

12 Cartesian Dualism

Cartesian44 dualism sees two separate and relatively weakly-linked parts to a human.45 The soul is the higher element and actually contains the “real” person. The body is lower and is merely the vessel that carries, or a tent which contains, the soul. When the link is severed, the person dies.

The body decomposes while the soul continues its existence. This is frequently stated: “You have a body but you are a soul.” In Christian dualism of this stripe, the incarnation of Logos frequently takes the approach that Jesus was “God in a Bod.”

Interacting Dualism

The Interacting Dualist continues to posit two separate components to a human person but sees them very tightly linked. So tightly linked that the failure of the body’s function profoundly disrupts the person at death. Still, the soul is made of stern stuff and survives. The person-ness of the human is still seen to continue in the soul.

Either forms of dualism, as described, seem to fall short of the biblical data that strongly states that the physical component is a profound contributor to the person-ness of a human. As the earliest witness to the constitution of a human being, Genesis 2:7 states, “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” If we take “the breath of life” as an animating force rather than the impartation of a soul, then there is clearly much here about a person’s physical make-up and almost no information about a “soul.” Therefore, the importance placed on the “soul” as the seat of the real person seems misplaced.

44 Named after Rene Descarte. 45 Notoriously, Descarte placed the linkage at the pineal gland in the brain. John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, 15 (1989, Eerdmans).

13 Trichotomy

The Trichotomist position is similar to the Dichotomist but state that there are three distinguishable elements and these are “body,” “soul,” and “spirit.” The body, as with any of the options, is easy and intuitive. The distinction between the soul and spirit is that it is the spirit that allows the person to ‘connect’ with the spiritual reality. The soul contains mental and emotional capabilities.

Biblical Data

The problem with the Trichotomist position is that once one recognizes the biblical data that there is more than the body, the data gets very ambiguous very quickly regarding how many distinguishable immaterial elements are within a human. The problem is with the words: “soul,”

“spirit,” and “being” are used interchangeably throughout the Old and New Testaments. The

Trichotomist uses 1Thes. 5:23,46 but Paul’s intent it to bless the complete person, not make a statement on constitutional anthropology; Heb. 4:1247 is even worse as because – if taken literally

– has to teach a Quadtonomist or Quintonomist position: soul, spirit, joints, and marrow, as well as maybe “heart.”48 Another passage used for the Trichotomist position is 1Cor. 15:42-44.49

Again, unless one chooses to take a very technical approach to the semantic scope of the word

46 “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (emphasis added). 47 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” 48 If Medical doctors two thousand years later can not distinguish the dividing point between bone and marrow, then how can theologians distinguish between soul and spirit? In fact, this verse powerfully speaks against Trichotomy and for Dichotomy or Duality in that The Author (if he is speaking about Constitutional Anthropology, which is doubtful) identifies two irreducible elements: spirit-soul and joints-marrow. The point of the verse is that the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to act in every aspect of our being, even aspects where (hyperbolically) there is no sensical division. 49 “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” (NAU)

14 “spiritual,”50 apparently this has to support a Dichotomist position as it refers to a natural

(material) body and a non-natural (supernatural-spiritual) body.

And where does it stop? When we look at the interchange between Jesus and the Pharisee in Mark 12:28-34 we see a ‘clear’ teaching on Quintonomy: Heart, Soul, Mind, Strength, and

Understanding! No, that wasn’t the point of the interchange at all. The passage has them both not only mis-quote the Old Testament passage,51 but also that they do not even quibble about their respective quotations52 shows that they both knew – and understood the other to know – that the point of Deuteronomy 6:4 is not about how many ‘parts’ are in a human, but that a person’s love for God must be total and use all of their being.53

Practical Theology Issues

Pragmatically, Trichotomy – with its emphasis that the spirit is a separate element - has been responsible for several theological corruptions. It can lead to a kind of Gnostic separation of the responsibility for sin (“My body or mind sinned while my spirit remained pure.”); an anti- intellectualism that sees the ‘soul’ (as proxy for rational processes) as evil and only seeing a

50 Such a technical approach is fraught with hermeneutical peril due to the complete overlap of the usage of words such as “body,” “person,” “flesh,” “soul,” “spirit,” etc. 51 Jesus quotes it: “AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.” (H, S, M, St) Pharisee quotes it: “AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, …” (H,U, St) The passage, Deut. 6:5 – “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (H, S, ‘St’) 52 Which is rather out-of-character for a Pharisee. We, as followers of Jesus, are perfectly content to let Jesus quote; what is, after all, his words!; in whatever way he chooses. But that even the Pharisee didn’t pounce on him with a “Gotcha! You didn’t quote the passage accurately!” profoundly underscores the point. 53 Note well that Jesus strongly affirms this Pharisee: “When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” (Mark 12:34).

15 ‘spiritual’ connection with God as being valuable;54 and a emotionally constipated ‘spiritual’ experience because if the soul is also the repository of the emotions, then any emotional connection to God is also highly suspect.

Certainly, Dichotomy of the Cartesian Dualism version can lead to the same theological corruptions. However, it is the discussion of how the two elements relate to each other that leads to the error, not the identification of the number of elements.

Cooper’s Holistic Dualism

John W. Cooper explicates his thesis in “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting.”55 Cooper’s

Constitutional Anthropology goes beyond ‘Strongly Interacting Dualism’ but stops short of

Monism. In fact, this reader can not find much to distinguish between Cooper and Erickson.56 In short, the human being – while alive on this earth – is a monastic or whole creature without any distinguishable elements. In fact, the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ are so intertwined that they are indistinguishable. Only at physical death are the two elements separated. This reduces the person to a sub-human existence (a fully human person has a body) and they are maintained intact by

God: believers in the presence of Jesus and unbelievers in a place of torment. Cooper’s approach comes from affirming both the Old Testament doctrine that there is some semi-conscious existence after physical death implied in the word, “sheol” and the New Testament teaching that affirms a very conscious existence after physical death within the doctrine of the Intermediate

State. Both Erickson and Cooper approach the matter from their philosophical bents. Cooper, as he can devote a full book to the subject, is able to do a complete examination of the biblical data.

54 This is a clear violation of what Moses, the Pharisee, and Jesus all understood: Love God with all your … mind. 55 Cooper, supra. 56 Erickson, supra.

16 Conclusion

Monism, as mentioned, stands irreconcilably against the biblical data.57 This leaves us with Dualism of some form. Trichotomy, while very popular has material conflicts with biblical data and has pragmatically led to poor theology. Cartesian Dualism is far too Platonic (and therefore dangerously close to Gnosticism) to mesh well with the biblical data and also presents very dangerous practical theology issues.

This writer, already persuaded to Interacting Dualism in the late-1970s, refining his understanding to “Conditional Unity” in the 1990’s, and affirming the missional goals of

“Phenomenological Monism” in the mid-2000’s, is very comfortable in agreeing with Cooper’s

“Holistic Dualism.”58

Hereditary Sin

For this paper’s argumentative sake, we will assume that sin is bad. This will be observed with greater clarity below. The question at issue here is why has sin become pervasive? Is it a necessary part of human nature? If so, how did that happen? Most orthodox theologians affirm a

“Sin Event” such that a named, first, human male is responsible for the introduction of sin to the human world.

Augustine-Calvin

Augustine formulated the concept of “Original Sin:” that first sin by Adam and Eve recorded in Genesis 3 which introduced sin into humanity. Augustine further stated that the effects of that first sin are passed on to all other humans both in terms of guilt and corruption.

57 With the reservation of judgment of Hasker’s “Emergent Dualism.” That model should be allowed to ‘simmer’ a bit more – it may have promise. 58 Or “Dualistic Holism,” even Cooper maintains the ambiguity.

17 Guilt in that all people are born guilty of sin;59 and corruption in that all humans are unable to fix the sin problem by any effort of their own. Additionally, Augustine stated that the passing on of this sin nature was done seminally (in an absolutely literal sense) through the male line and therefore we all, being “in the loins of Adam,” were really present and therefore participants in

Adam’s sin. Calvin developed this corruption issue more extensively into two aspects: the first is

“total depravity” which means that anything a human does is tainted by sin and therefore unacceptable to holy God; the second is “total inability” which means that there is nothing we can do which is powerful enough to break the grip of sin. Therefore, humans need God to “make the first move” and, only by grace, can God be motivated to help. Calvin took the impartation of sin nature to the rest of humanity as due to Adam’s unique headship – Adam stands as representative for the rest of humanity.60

Unhelpfully, the Calvinistic-Reform theology seems to have taken it upon itself to make sure that God really is as sovereign as they think he should be. So while it correctly identifies the problem of sin, as the Reform system moves on to other matters, it begins to disappoint.

Pelagian

Pelagius, a monk in the 400’s, was appalled by licentiousness which he linked to a fatalistic application of Augustine’s teaching on corruption. Pelagius violently rejected the thought that because only if God can give strength to resist sin then it is impossible to resist, therefore do not bother resisting!61 While Pelagius’ motivation to encourage holy behavior is commendable, Pelagius went further and developed a theological treatment of sin that crossed the line into error. 1) There is no direct linkage between Adam’s sin and our sin (this is refuted

59 With the exception of Jesus Christ. 60 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demerest, 2 Integrative Theology, 192 (1996, Zondervan). 61 Of course, this was a corruption of Augustine’s teaching. A corruption of a teaching about corruption. The irony would be beautiful if the effects were not so ugly.

18 by Rom. 5). 2) Adam’s sin’s effect is that of bad example62 (this is refuted by Gen. 3 where

Adam sinned for no explicable reason). 3) People are free and therefore morally responsible

(Pelagius got this right). 4) People must use their freedom to obey God (ignoring Jn. 8:3463).

Pelagius’ error was in mixing good motives with bad biblical exegesis. 64

Semi-Pelagian

The Semi-Pelagians developed their theology after Pelagianism was declared a heresy.

They nuanced Pelagius’ teaching by admitting there certainly was a connection between Adam’s and our sin. Additionally, resisting Augustine’s doctrine of corruption, they said that because humans are free, they are able to initiate a first response towards God. God’s grace is still needed, however, to strengthen that impulse and resolve. God and people cooperate in coming to salvation. This system was developed by Jacob Arminius who further stated that there is no original guilt,65 though each is guilty when they individually sin.66

Wesleyanism

Charles Wesley developed a mediating position. Wesley admitted to both original guilt and original corruption. But he posited, from John 6:4467, a special “prevenient grace” whereby

God grants the ability for people to overcome the inability of their corruption and both seek God and respond to his call for their repentance. Building on Arminianism, Wesley sees that people remain guiltless until the sin nature is ‘activated’ by actual transgression.68

62 And thus the Pelagians come down on the side of nurture in the nurture v. nature debate. 63 “Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” 64 2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” 65 Thus, in a stroke, solving the horrifying theological problem of people who die in infancy. 66 Thus allowing for Jesus being sinless through perfect obedience. 67 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…” 68 This is Millard Erickson’s view. Erickson, supra, at 656.

19 Conclusion

This writer certainly sees the error of Pelagius’ theology while admiring his desire to reform the ethics of his day. Arminianism is ruled out because of Romans 5 which seems to clearly teach that Adam’s sin is pervasive to all of humanity.69 However, the Wesley position - in this matter only – has some merit. It recognizes both original guilt and original corruption – including total depravity and total inability. Yet it sees that God gives grace to overcome those disabilities. The Reform view is very good in accurately identifying the effect and extent of sin.70

Additionally, only the Augustinian and Calvinist streams have given any consideration for how both guilt and corruption are transferred throughout humanity. While there seems to be some evidence that there was a real presence of all of Adam’s descendants (noting the analogy of

The Author to Abraham vis-à-vis Levi71), the primary thrust of scripture is that Adam was a unique representative or proxy for all of humanity. 72 Therefore, when Adam sinned, all of humanity sinned.

Plantinga’s Insights

The remainder of this paper will examine four elements of sin as developed by Cornelius

Plantinga.73

Insight One – Vandalism of Shalom

Plantinga opens his extraordinary work with a compelling and functional definition of

69 The strength of Arminianism is that it easily explains a lack of sin nature in Jesus. Augustinian and Reformed theologies have to do more work to connect dots. But that is far preferable than just ignoring some dots as the Arminians seem to do. 70 But also flawed in that it ignores the plain sense of the text to maintain the coherence of a system. 71 Heb. 7:9-10. 72 Though this writer has not seen it mentioned, there is further proof in that it was actually Eve who first sinned and brought sin into human beings. Yet throughout scripture it is clearly stated that the responsibility for sin is Adam’s. 73 Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. Not The Way It’s Supposed To Be: A Breviary of Sin (1995, Eerdmans).

20 sin. He combines two words forcefully: vandalism and Shalom. Vandalism is an act with the aim of either intentionally, or with reckless disregard for consequences, destroying something that exists in its own integrity. Our current illustration is the fence or wall that is ‘defaced’ with painted gang identifiers. Though the root of the word, “vandal,” is old its semantic meaning is still rich in its impact.

“Shalom” is a bit more obscure. Most Christians and nearly all Jews understand that it is a Hebrew word that roughly translates to “peace.” But Plantinga develops the meaning of the word into its fuller meaning: “universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight.” Plantinga states that God’s original design for the world and people was very different from what we now experience. The reason it is it not the way it is suppose to be is because of sin. Plantinga briefly touches on themes of our own disquiet that things ought to be better, much better, than what we see and experience.

Sin, both in its actual exercise and in the ethos it creates in society and culture, vandalizes shalom. In his introductory illustration that quoted the movie, “Grand Canyon,” the end-game of sin is described in the implied moral state of the gang: the world isn’t supposed to be like this and it’s entirely possible that the gang members do not realize that fact. A wall can be so painted over that people can forget it was once originally clean and white. Sin can so vandalize, that it destroys the ability to recognize what was there in the first place. Shalom so destroyed that no one recognizes it if it is able to pop up.74

Insight Two – Perversion, Pollution, Disintegration, and Parasites

This writer will combine two of Plantinga’s chapters into one insight. Sin is first a parasite. It has no independent existence. It can only exist or be understood in reference to a

74 One is drawn to the biblical examples of the days of Noah and the moral climate of Sodom or Gammorha.

21 good.75 This is easy to see in the context of law and crime: murder is defined as the “unlawful taking of a human life by another.” In sins of commission, a person does something they should not do. In sins of omission, a person does not do something they should do. As Plantinga notes,

“Evil always appears in tandem with good.”76 And again, “Sin intervenes, but never as an independent theme. Thus St. Paul, …, speaks of sin in terms of what it is against.”77 More strongly, evil does not conceptually exist without prior necessary referent to a good.78

Sin perverts by taking a legitimate thing (usually a good ‘end’) and twisting it to something illegitimate (by using a bad ‘means’). Sin pollutes by introducing something that doesn’t belong into a clean thing. Sin disintegrates by taking something that is whole and breaking it. “Actually, we often resort instead to … simply isolate the problem instead of addressing it. The chief of these is ‘compartmentalizing.’”79 This can occur because of a foreign wedge (note the cross-over with pollution) or allowing, by inattention (note the cross-over with parasitical perversion), for something that is supposed to stay together to fall apart.80

The awful81 irony is that “paradoxically, though sinners attack what’s good, they usually intend to gain something good by sinning.”82

75 “[S]in is unoriginal, that it disrupts something good and harmonious.” Plantinga, supra, at 16. 76 Plantinga, supra, at 80. 77 Plantinga, supra, at 87 (emphasis in original). 78 “In the Christian view, sin is not an independent entity or topic, and the only right way to frame it is with presentations of creation and redemption.” Plantinga, supra, at 6. 79 Plantinga, supra, at 46. 80 This writer notes that one of the most notorious examples of dis-integrity was former President Bill Clinton. One of his advisors (Stephenopolous?), when asked if the Lewinsky scandal was distracting the President from the task of governance, replied that no, “the President is one of the most compartmentalized people I’ve ever known.” In another view, President Clinton was not an integrated, whole person – he was “compartmentalized” such that things in one compartment of his life did not affect things in a different compartment. This is also consistent with observations that President Clinton “had no center” to hold him together – to allow him to build integration into his life. 81 “Awful” in that the irony is awe-inspiring. 82 Plantinga, supra, at 89 (emphasis in original).

22 Insight Three – Sin is Vibrant

This is a theme that Plantinga develops in various chapters. Plantinga comments, “Sin attracts us whenever it is vital.”83 In our own lives, sin attracts because of our recognition of life- giving, life-sustaining, or life-enhancing need, and sin’s apparent answer to meet that need. Sin can even appear heroic. Sinners, especially when acting against type, “seem so full of life.”84

Additionally, sin begets sin – and not of its own kind. “On one hand, sin tends to despoil things…. On the other hand, sin is remarkably generative: sin yields more and more sin.”85

Plantinga takes us through an exercise where he traces the effects of the sin of envy and invites us to observe it give birth to lying, to murder, to anger, to covetousness, and eventually to moral value reversal.86 Sin, when observed from afar and especially when experienced as a victim, at the least chips away at an expectation of shalom but at the worst creates motivation

(rationalization) to sin in kind. “[S]in multiplies right along with goodness.”87 Sin, by its parasitic nature, grows, expands, mutates, and crowds out the good. It is alive like cancer is alive – growing but not good.

Insight Four – Sin and Folly

This writer is grateful for this chapter. In such a depressing topic, this chapter served as the relative comic relief. Plantinga begins by defining wisdom as both knowledge and ability:

“wisdom is… the knowledge of God’s world and the knack of fitting oneself into it.” A wise person does not see the world in some sort of idealistic expectation. No, a wise person lives a good life by living in accommodation to reality.88

83 Plantinga, supra, at 94 (emphasis in original). 84 Id. 85 Plantinga, supra, at 53. 86 What any objective person would recognize as horrible evil is perceived as a positive good. 87 Plantinga, supra, at 90. 88 Plantinga, supra, at 118.

23 Plantinga: “Common sense tells us that a lot of things human beings do are loopy but not sinful.”89 We smile ruefully at that – which of us does not recall a really stupid act that could rightly be described as “pure folly?” Yet while “not all folly is sin, but all sin is folly. Sin is both wrong and dumb.”90 Why? Again, going back to wisdom, a wise (non-foolish) person understands God’s world. Recognizing the realities of that world is also to recognize that acting against God’s guidance for dealing with that world is non-wise (foolish). When we act out of pride, we foolishly forget that God is actually the one who is Large and In Charge.

To suggest that sin is merely folly is, of course, incomplete. Sin is not just embarrassing, stupid, silly, or even just entertaining. Yes, watching somebody do something stupid can be fun at one level, but watching somebody do something stupidly sinful (or sinfully stupid) should cause us a momentary discomfort because sin is bad.

Conclusion

This writer thoroughly ‘enjoyed’ Plantinga’s book (if it is possible to ‘enjoy’ reading about such a truly awful topic). His style is engaging, insightful, and devastating as one reads it.

This writer, in arranging his reading for the course, would read a chapter or two a day from each of the books but then would leave Plantinga last as it was the tasty dessert to finish off the meal.

89 Plantinga, supra, at 119. 90 Plantinga, supra, at 121.