Equipping Pastors International s1

DOCTINAL HISTORY: ANTHROPOLOGY

Jonathan M. Menn

B.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1974 J.D., Cornell Law School, 1977 M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2007

Equipping Pastors International 714 S. Summit St., Appleton, WI 54914 (920) 734-0709 [email protected] www.equippingpastors.com

DOCTRINAL HISTORY: ANTHROPOLOGY

Early Church

Apostolic Fathers [Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius] (1st Cent.)  Writings fragmentary—lack originality, depth, clearness and definiteness. (37-39)1  No particular emphasis on anthropology.

Gnosticism [heretical movement] (1st-3d Cents.)  Held that matter was inherently evil and had been created by a lesser God (Demiurge, the God of the OT); Christ was a special spirit emissary who provided secret knowledge through which certain persons could be saved. (47-48)  Men divided into three classes: pneumatic (the elite of the Church); psychic (ordinary Church members); and hylic (lowest, Gentiles). Only the pneumatic are capable of higher knowledge and highest blessedness. Psychic may be saved through faith and works, but can only attain inferior blessedness. Hylic are hopelessly lost. (48)

Apologetes [Justin Martyr (d.165), Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch] (2d Cent.)  They all held to the resurrection of the dead, but there was a difference among them as to the essential immortality of the soul.  Tatian, Theophilus and Justin regarded immortality as a reward for the righteous and a punishment for the wicked. (59)

Alexandrian Fathers [Clement of Alexandria, Origen] (2d-3d Cents.)  Origen taught that the original creation was exclusively of rational spirits, co-equal and co-eternal. These pre-existent people fell from holiness to sin, which was the occasion of the creation of the present material world; the fallen spirits then became souls clothed with bodies. Matter not only supplied an abode for the fallen spirits, but was a means of discipline and purgation. (73)  Origen and Gregory of Nyssa came close to the doctrine of original sin (transmission of a hereditary pollution attached to everyone at birth). (128)  Athanasius and John Chrysostom avoided the doctrine of original sin. (128)  The emphasis of the Greek Fathers was on the free will of man rather than on divine grace as initiating the work of redemption; God’s power cooperates with human will to enable it to turn from evil and do good. (128-29)

Anti-Gnostic Fathers [Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian] (late 2d-early 3d Cents.)  Stressed that evil is not inherent in matter; rather, man was created in the image of God, without immortality (perfection), but with the possibility of receiving it by obedience. In Adam, the whole race became subject to death.  Tertullian o Said that evil became a natural part of man, passing via natural generation [traducianism— propagation of the soul by natural generation, as opposed to creationism—separated creation of the soul by God (favored by the Greek Fathers)] from Adam to the entire race (i.e., original sin). (64, 129) o Held that God created generic human nature, body and soul, and individualizes it by procreation. (129) o Tertullian’s maxim: Tradux animae, tradux peccati=”Propagation of the soul involves propagation of sin.” (129)  Irenaeus held that God expelled man from the garden and allowed death to occur so that sin might not exist forever. (63-64)

Latin Fathers [Cyprian, Hilary and Ambrose] (3d-4th Cents.)

1 Unless otherwise indicated, page references are to Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Carlisle, Penn., Banner of Truth, 1937 [reprinted 2002]). 1 Copyright © by Jonathan Menn and Equipping Pastors International 2007. All rights reserved.

 An increased tendency toward the original sinfulness (i.e., not just corruption) of man and monergistic “renewal” of the soul.  However, did not hold to an entire corruption of the human will (hence, still appeared to hold to a synergistic theory of regeneration, although were uncertain and contradictory re. this). (130)

312AD-Middle Ages

Pelagius and Augustine (4th-5th Cents.)  Pelagius (British monk) o Adam was created in a state of neutrality, not in positive holiness; his will was free and undetermined; he was created mortal; his choosing to sin injured no one but himself (i.e., it did not impair human nature). o There is no hereditary transmission of a sinful nature or guilt (hence, no “original sin”); man is born in the same state as Adam before the fall (except that we have the evil example before us); man’s sin is not necessary, and consists in the voluntary choice to sin; man’s will is born free and undetermined; God’s commands for us to do good proves that we are able to do good (i.e., our “responsibility is the measure of our ability”). o Man is not dependent on God to turn from evil to good; God’s “grace” which assists us is not the internal working of the HS, but external gifts and natural endowments, including Scripture and the example of Jesus. (132-33)  Augustine (Bishop of Hippo) o Man was created with the capacity for immortality and in a state of holiness, and would have remained so had he always obeyed. He was created in a state of posse non peccari et mori (the ability not to sin and die), and would have passed into the state of non posse peccari et mori (the inability to sin and die), but his sin changed his state to non posse non peccari et mori (the inability not to sin and die). o Adam’s organic connection with his descendants has transmitted guilt and corruption to all of humanity; all of humanity was germinally present in Adam (“realism,” as opposed to “federalism”); mankind is thus totally (radically) depraved and unable to do any spiritual good. o Regeneration is monergistic (God does not force the will, but changes it so that man voluntarily chooses God and the good); man cooperates with God in that man’s faith is a response to God’s gift of grace; God predestines the elect, but “passes over” (pretermission), without the necessity of any direct divine efficiency, the reprobate. (134-36)  Council of Ephesus (431) condemned Pelagianism as heretical. Augustinianism was adopted as the view of the Western Church. (137-38)  Semi-Pelagianism—Man’s nature is “weakened or diseased rather than fatally injured by the Fall”; human nature retains free will, and regeneration requires the cooperation of human free choice and divine grace.  Council of Orange (529) condemned semi-Pelagianism, and upheld moderate Augustinianism. o The Council also rejected double predestination. o Following the Council of Orange, the Western [Roman Catholic] Church gradually abandoned “irresistible grace” for the “sacramental grace” of baptism, and Augustinianism for the semi- Pelagianism of the Greek Church. (138-39)

Middle Ages (6th-15th Cents.)  Gregory the Great (pope, 590)--Adam’s sin was a free act; through him all men became sinners and subject to condemnation. However, sin was a “weakness,” not a guilt. Man had lost only the goodness of the will, not the freedom of the will. (140)  Gottschalk (800s)--Contended for Augustinian double predestination, and rejected the idea of predestination based on foreknowledge.  The Councils of Quiercy (853) and Valence (855) essentially held that predestination to life was based on God’s free election, but predestination to reprobation was based on foreknowledge. (141-42)  Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) o Re. Sin--By the Fall, man became guilty and polluted; all sin, original and actual, constitutes guilt.

Children are individualized parts of general human nature which Adam possessed (so they sinned in Adam and are guilty of his sin). Adam’s sin was unique in that it was the transgression of an individual who included within himself all of humanity (the sin of an individual causing the guilt of nature). (143) o Re. Freedom of the Will--Perfect moral freedom is an inclination always to do the right, not to depart from the way of righteousness. Adam sinned, not because of his free will, but in spite of it (because of the possibility of sinning). (143-44)  Roman Catholicism o Righteousness was not a natural, but supernatural, endowment of man. Man naturally consists of flesh and spirit which are in conflict. The entrance of sin caused man to lose his original (supernatural) righteousness. Since Adam represented all his descendants, the entire race is burdened with original sin, but that is primarily a lack of original justice (although some hold also to an inclination to evil). o Romanism rejects man’s spiritual impotence and his utter dependence on God’s grace for renewal (thus holding to synergistic, not monergistic regeneration). (144-46)

Reformation and Post-Reformation (1517-Present)

The Reformation (1517-1675)  Magisterial Reformers—Essentially followed, with modifications, Augustine and Anselm re. sin and grace. o Luther and Calvin particularly stressed man’s inability to do any spiritual good, thus necessitating monergistic regeneration. o Melancthon pulled back from this, as he did from Luther’s and Calvin’s double predestination. (147-49) o Calvin stressed that original sin is not merely a privation, but radically corrupts the entire nature as a positive evil. o Beza especially emphasized that Adam was humanity’s federal head (i.e., humanity’s moral and legal representative) as well as being its natural head; hence, his sin is imputed to all his descendants, who are both guilty in him, and born in a polluted condition.  Socinianism--Antitrinitarian movement led by Socinus of Siena, Italy; revived Pelagianism. Adam had no “positive righteousness” to lose, and his sin (as well as Christ’s life and death) were simply examples for us. (149-50)  Arminianism--Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and his followers (“The Remonstrants”) denied the decree of reprobation, and held that the pollution from Adam’s sin was passed on to his descendant’s, but that the guilt of his sin was not imputed. The pollution of sin weakened man’s nature, but man, through his free will, could cooperate with God’s prevenient or common grace (sufficient for all) to effect regeneration (which God, to be just, was bound to bestow). Election was, therefore, based on foreseen faith. (150-51)  Synod of Dort [Netherlands](1618)—Rejected Arminianism; upheld Calvinism. o Affirmed double predestination (election and reprobation [by preterition—“passing by”] are absolute, not based on foreseen faith). o Affirmed the “total depravity,” of human nature, and imputed guilt and pollution from Adam. Man is able to do relative good in natural matters, but regeneration is strictly monergistic. (151-53)  Amyraldism (School of Saumur)--God decreed universal salvation in Christ on the condition of faith but, seeing that of himself no man would believe, elected some to eternal life and gave them the necessary grace of faith. Also, Adam’s sin was not immediately imputed to mankind, but men are born with a corrupt nature, which is then imputed to them as guilt. o The latter position was rejected by the Synod of Charenton (1644). o The Helvetic Consensus Formula [Switzerland](1675), the last of the Calvinistic creeds, rejected Amyrauldism and reaffirmed Calvinism, including “particular [limited] atonement” and the immediate imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity. (153-54)

Post-Reformation (1675-Present)

 No major controversies, Synods or Councils have broken any particularly new ground, although there have been some modifications:  Wesleyanism--Modified Arminianism in that the Guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to his descendants, but this original guilt was cancelled by the justification of all men in Christ (i.e., a universal benefit of the Atonement); by nature man does not have the ability to co-operate with God’s grace for salvation, but God’s universal prevenient grace (free grace, not justice) gives all men sufficient enabling grace to turn to God in faith. (155-56)  Jonathan Edwards--Emphasized the determinate character of the will, and adopted the realist theory of the transmission of Adam’s sin to his progeny (who are “as the branches are with a tree”). o Some of Edwards’ followers watered down God’s connection with the entrance of sin into the world, approached Arminianism re. the freedom of the will, and adopted the Saumurian view of the mediate imputation of guilt. (156-57)  Philosophers o Leibnitz—Sin is metaphysical rather than ethical, the natural result of the necessary limitation of the creature. o Kant—Sin is “radical evil” based on a free act of the will in disobedience to the moral law. o Hegel—Sin is a necessary step in the evolution of man as a self-conscious spirit. (157-59) o Schleiermacher—Sin is a necessary product of man’s sensuous nature, the bodily appetites preventing the spirit from performing its proper function (sin has no objective existence, but exists only in our consciousness). (158-59)