Luther has been criticized to have spent too much time dwelling on how sinful man is. This “preoccupation” with man’s corrupt nature is claimed (by critics) to be foreign to the teachings of Paul. Rather, they say, Paul was usually anxious to declare how blameless he was under the law. Now granted, Paul doesn’t mention the depravity all that much (apart from the ‘none righteous’ passage). And Luther seems to dwell greatly on human corruption in his writings. But there’s a difference between Paul’s writings and Luther’s writings. Paul is writing letters to fellow Christians, who are dealing with specific problems. Luther’s writings, on the other hand, are journal-type, theological ponderings. The depravity of man isn’t really an issue that one of Paul’s churches would have struggled with (hence, not much reference to it in Paul’s letters). It’s clear from Romans and other texts that Paul believes in the depravity of man—he just doesn’t talk much about it. Luther, who’s desire it was to write a systematic theology on this specific issue, spends a ton of time on it, because really the doctrine touches on every aspect of Christianity. For instance, if man were not totally depraved (as Luther expounds on at great length), one probably wouldn’t have to have faith in Christ alone—a major topic in Pauline theology. The depravity of man is such an important, basic, and essential truth to the Christian faith, that without a correct view of the natural state of man, one cannot fully comprehend the purpose of Christ’s death in history.
Did you like this? Share it:
Our dear friend Albert Schweitzer has this idea that Christianity teaches that eventually Christians will die, go to Heaven, and be united in God—that Christians will end up sharing in God’s deity, in His very being. This is the “mysticism” Schweitzer speaks of. And I’d have to say he’s way off. Scriptures nowhere teach that Christians will be united in God. Sure, we’ll be in Heaven with God, but as far as essences are concerned, we’ll still be very distinct from God. In fact, Scriptures teach us that we’ll be spending our time worshiping and praising God for all eternity. There’s no sense in which we will be equated with God at all. It’s dangerously near-Mormonism to think any such thing.
Did you like this? Share it:
Only because there are so-called “super apostles” going around trying to one-up Paul and take over his established churches, does Paul resort to listing his own superior accomplishments. Paul says he’s a Pharisee of Pharisees and blameless under the law, only because the “super apostles” have said they were super Jews and exceedingly meticulous about observing the law. Paul says he’s blameless only as a counter to their arguments. In theological terms, Paul knows that no man is righteous and no man does good. He’s speaking at a different level here in Philippians, than he did in early Romans. Paul speaks at the level of the common man—on the surface. In everyday talk, one might say to a judge, “I’m innocent!” Certainly, that person is not making a theological statement, meaning he has lived a completely perfect life. Rather, on the surface, he is making a general claim about a particular behavior. In Philippians, Paul speaks in a base way—a way that people can easily understand. He isn’t being particularly picky theologically.
Did you like this? Share it:
