In keeping with my work on the ‘Vicarious Humanity of Christ,’ in particular within Reformed theology—but also reaching back into PaleoChristianity—J. Todd Billings provides a great synopsis and call for word of caution relative to how Reformed theology has been so often caricatured. How many times have you said, or how many times have you heard others say that Calvinism presents us with a view of humanity that is hard, rigid, deterministic; and really with a view wherein there remains no longer a place for real humanity to be real humanity? Usually the premise behind this musing is that the definitive piece that defines what real humanity is, is the component of ‘free-will’. The conjecture is that if someone doesn’t have Libertarian deliberative individualistic free-will; then this demands that any such view (that articulates anything less) provides us with a sub-human view of humanity in general. This is the kind of stuff that J. Todd Billings seeks to correct (in the section that he is working through in his book) in the following quote:
Contrary to the frequent caricatures of Reformed theology in which God is seen as diametrically opposed to humanity, Calvin and the mainstream Reformed tradition follow this Augustinian line of thought in claiming that true humanity is humanity in communion with God. Therefore, as a consequence of the example from Augustine, emphasizing divine agency does not mean diminishing or demeaning the human. Saying that redemption is 100 percent empowered by God does not mean that humanity is belittled to nothingness. No. Instead, full deity and full humanity belong together in communion. Thus an action performed “by the Spirit” is an activation of our human faculties, not a diminishment of them. [J. Todd Billings, Union With Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011), 43]
Do you still think that the Reformed tradition belittles humanity? In what sense? The obvious premise that the above flows from is one that the Scotist thesis (which Calvin was, ‘Scotist’) has articulated; viz. that the ‘purpose’ of creation, and humanity has always been to be in union and thus communion with God. And the purpose of the Father’s love has always already been for his Son and consummated by the Spirit. We participate and find our bearing for who we were created to be, in and only through the recreated humanity of the Son. If we are going to be truly human, then we must be inside the purposes of God for his creation. If the purposes of God for creation are only realized in the Son’s humanity for us; then we must be participants in the Son’s humanity if we are truly going to operate at a maximal human level. This seems to be an implication and exposition of what Billings is getting at in his opening statement (of which he will be developing as I read on) above.
I do not wish to attack the reformed tradition outright here, but simply perhaps say two things. I hope my comments, being Catholic as they are, are not considered obnoxious, but they express interesting and genuine concerns on my part. The first is that I find it odd that the reformed tradition claims to be Augustinian on the point of free will when both Augustine’s writings and his legacy (for instance the canons of the second council of orange which are explicitly Augustinian) leave little room for doubt that he had a strong belief in free will. If this pretended-augustinianism is to be maintained, then how does one deal not only with the protestant scholarship which suggests the contrary (Alister McGrath’s book on Justification, for instance) but also the clear Augustinian references to free will? Perhaps this is more of a historical concern on my part. Certainly I think you are quite right to identify a ‘realized-anthropology’ with man being united to God, participating in the mystery of the divine life of the trinity and thus having the beatific vision. The issue, of course, isn’t where reformed theology is in agreement with catholic (small ‘c’ on purpose, as I’m making a concession for the sake of argument – I’m suggesting that the vast majority of Christians from the first century down to the present have held in common that man really does have free will) Christianity, but rather where it is not in agreement. The issue of whether reformed theology reflects a truly Christian vision of man in this case cannot be settled by pointing to the very admirable features of its vision of man which it has borrowed from tradition as it received it – but whether, in its distinct changes to that tradition, it comes closer to a truly Christian anthropology.
Obviously I am biased, as a convert – I adamantly disagree with the reformed tradition where it departs from the Catholic tradition. However, my concern here is principally about obscuring the issue by claiming the vision to be Augustinian, which is disingenuous, or else by suggesting that the reformed tradition does not betray a proper vision of man because it maintains a Christian teleological anthropology (and I’m not even sure it really does that, but I’ll grant it). Even if it were Augustinian, which I think it’s not, and even if it preserves a Christian anthropology based on the final-cause of man, which I will grant it does for the sake of argument – it does not follow that no feature of what it suggests is radically inhuman. Determinism in the strict sense and the denial of free will really does seriously harm a proper vision of man as a free agent, which, most people take it, man is. If I have any concern with the reformed tradition, this is certainly it – that it denies man free will and thus proposes a view of man which was absolutely unacceptable to the Church Fathers (at least).
My second concern is more philosophical. William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and others, have argued that Libertarian Free Will is a properly basic belief. By the epistemological standards which Plantinga stipulates, I think he’s right – it must be. Philosophically then, unless we are to depart with Plantinga’s “reformed epistemology” (ironically named, though I agree with Craig that it is also wrongly named) we will have to come to terms with how we could have parted with such a belief. One might suggest that there is a defeater to the belief, but I certainly cannot see it, since Catholicism, for example, is still (or should be) an intellectually and theologically live option, and so long as two options are both intellectually plausible, where one demands that you deny a properly basic belief and the other does not, the choice seems epistemically clear.
How would you respond to these two concerns? Thank you for your patience, and I hope I was able to restrain myself from writing anything too ‘provocative’.
Tyler,
Your questions are worthy of an actual blog post response. Be on the look out, I’ll try to have something up on this within 2 weeks.
Merry Christmas
Oh, well, take your time – I look forward to reading and perhaps engaging your response.
Merry Christmas, and God bless.
Tyler,
Yeah, your questions require a little more thought and explanation than I have the time for at the moment; but I’ll address your questions.