We recently had a discussion in class regarding sanctification. Drawing three distinctions between Natural Theology (we have the power in Christ to do the good now and are made perfect through our works), Reformed theology (we are hopeless sinners, but we can limpingly progress toward our final destination in the power of the Holy Spirit, and should make some effort to that effect, though perfection is only an eschatalogical category) and Evangelical theology (we're only counted righteous when God looks at Christ---the imitation of Christ takes sort of a backseat to spreading the gospel---and perfection or improvement is only an eternal reality). I'm sure these lines get blurred because people are hardly uniform in their beliefs, but we tried to differentiate them to focus on their difference.
Then I came across this quotation from Calvin.
“But no one in this earthly prison of the body has sufficient strength to press on with due eagerness, and weakness so weighs down the greater number that, with wavering and limping and even creeping along the ground, they move at a feeble rate. Let each one of us, then, proceed according to the measure of his puny capacity and set out upon the journey we have begun. No one shall set out so inauspiciously as not daily to make some headway, though it be slight. Therefore, let us not cease so to act that we may make some unceasing progress in the way of the Lord. And let us not despair at the slightness of our success; for even though attainment may not correspond to desire, when today outstrips yesterday the effort is not lost. Only let us look toward our mark with sincere simplicity and aspire to our goal; not fondly flattering ourselves, nor excusing our own evil deeds, but with continuous effort striving toward this end: that we may surpass ourselves in goodness until we attain to goodness itself. It is this, indeed, which through the whole course of life we seek and follow. But we shall attain it only when we have cast off the weakness of the body, and are received into full fellowship with him.”
- John Calvin [1509-1564]
Institutes of the Christian Religion, McNeill and Battles, eds., p. 689
I'm curious to hear from some of the natural theologians out there as to whether they would agree with these distinctions or not, and I'd also like to know how they would characterize the process of sanctification.
3 comments:
I realize you are not speaking to the likes of me, what with being all Reformed and whatnot. But I recently came across something Reformed theologian Peter Vermigli said, “Grace is the beginning of glory and glory the consummation of grace.” I liked that quite a bit. I repeated it aloud probably seven times so I would get it right, being so dense. In my opinion, many who would otherwise called themselves Reformed sure talk more like pietist Evangelicals than earthy confessionalists, making more of their sanctification than the best of the tradition seems to allow. Calvin and Vermigli, along with what one seems to find in our collective forms, seem more given to a sober Calvinism that at once recognizes our “being made perfect” but underplays it as well (remember that the Reformation was a two-front battle, one not only against Rome but also the “fanatics” who Luther said seem to think they had “swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all”). We adhere to a piety that sees grace as renewing nature, not overwhelming or obliterating it. I’d link a piece from R. Scott Clark that fleshes this out more, but my cyber-savviness mirrors my progress in sanctification.
Zrim
They seem like pretty messy distinctions to me. Dunno if the term 'Natural Theology' is terribly appropriate either. If this is supposed to mean the Catholic position, I might quote the following marvelous passage from the Summa on the subject Christian perfection (not quite the picture of 'Natural Theology' presumably discussed in class).
"I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity. Now perfection implies a certain universality because according to Phys. iii, 6, "the perfect is that which lacks nothing." Hence we may consider a threefold perfection. One is absolute, and answers to a totality not only on the part of the lover, but also on the part of the object loved, so that God be loved as much as He is lovable. Such perfection as this is not possible to any creature, but is competent to God alone, in Whom good is wholly and essentially.
Another perfection answers to an absolute totality on the part of the lover, so that the affective faculty always actually tends to God as much as it possibly can; and such perfection as this is not possible so long as we are on the way, but we shall have it in heaven.
The third perfection answers to a totality neither on the part of the object served, nor on the part of the lover as regards his always actually tending to God, but on the part of the lover as regards the removal of obstacles to the movement of love towards God, in which sense Augustine says (QQ. LXXXIII, qu. 36) that "carnal desire is the bane of charity; to have no carnal desires is the perfection of charity." Such perfection as this can be had in this life, and in two ways. First, by the removal from man's affections of all that is contrary to charity, such as mortal sin; and there can be no charity apart from this perfection, wherefore it is necessary for salvation. Secondly, by the removal from man's affections not only of whatever is contrary to charity, but also of whatever hinders the mind's affections from tending wholly to God. Charity is possible apart from this perfection, for instance in those who are beginners and in those who are proficient."
You can totally see here in the two quotes the contrast between Scholasticism and anti-Scholasticism. Calvin is trying to sound all holy or whatever, but who knows what he's actually saying. Stick with St. Thomas, my friend... you (almost) always know what he's saying.
zrim, email it to me. my email is the same.
John, I'm still chewing on the Thomas quotation, but it seems to be about piety, and the possibility of directing our attention to God in this life. I'm wondering how that stands in distinction to what Calvin is saying.
The best I can say now is that it seems that for Thomas perfection is real possibility (in the third sense), and for Calvin it is but it isn't.
Confusing stuff.
Post a Comment