Romans 1:18-32 is one of the most famous passages in the Pauline corpus. It is also one of the most difficult to interpret. In this passage, Paul claims that men possessed some natural knowledge of God after they fell into sin, but that they misapplied this knowledge and practiced idolatry. The text raises a number of difficult questions. What was the content of this natural knowledge? In other words, what did these men know about God? Also, what was the source of this knowledge? Did God implant it directly in their minds? Did they acquire it through the observation of nature? Or did they somehow acquire it in both ways? And how exactly did they abuse the knowledge they had been given? These and other questions have exercised Paul’s readers for generations, and they are as difficult to answer today as they were several hundred years ago.
In chapter two of his book Calvin in Context, David Steinmetz examines some Protestant interpretations of Romans 1:18-32. In particular, he examines the interpretations of Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, and Calvin. Steinmetz makes a number of interesting points about these interpretations. Today, I want to look at four of these points.
First, Steinmetz notes that Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 differed from that of most Protestants (and also most Catholics) of his time. For Lutheran thinkers like Melanchthon and Reformed thinkers like Bucer and Bullinger, the main argument of Romans 1:18-32 was sufficiently clear: since the Gentiles possessed some natural knowledge of God – i.e., knowledge of God that isn’t based on God’s special revelation in Holy Scripture – they were blameworthy for their sins, including idolatry, even though both their natural knowledge of God and their ability to put that knowledge into practice were significantly damaged by the fall. Melancthon, Bucer, and Bullinger were not in perfect agreement about the content and source of this natural knowledge, but they all agreed that Paul taught that fallen man possessed some genuine knowledge of God apart from Holy Scripture. Moreover, they agreed that Paul taught that fallen man possessed some natural knowledge of God's nature and will. Calvin agreed that fallen man has a sensus divinitatus – an inborn sense that God exists. But Calvin argued that fallen man has no knowledge of God's nature or will apart from Holy Scripture. Fallen man knows that God exists by virtue of intuition, but his mind is so damaged by the fall that he cannot know anything about God’s nature or will – such as that He is one, or that He commands people to be just – apart from His special revelation in Holy Scripture.
For Melanchthon, Bucer, and Bullinger, fallen man accurately perceives something of God’s nature and will, but he fails to put it into practice as a result of the corrupting influence of the fall. For Calvin, fallen man is so thoroughly corrupted that he cannot accurately perceive anything of God’s nature or will. According to Calvin, fallen man correctly intuits that God exists, and in that sense he may be said to possess innate, natural knowledge that God exists. But, Calvin denies that fallen man possesses any natural knowledge of God's nature or will. Until he is enlightened by the special revelation of Holy Scripture, fallen man will inevitably hold idolatrous beliefs, such as that God is many, or that God is rock or wood. Similarly, he will inevitably hold mistaken beliefs about God's moral commands. By contrast, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Bullinger maintain that fallen man possesses the natural knowledge that God is one, and that He is neither rock nor wood; and, they also maintain that he possesses some natural knowledge of God's moral commands. In summary, Calvin’s reading of Romans 1:18-32 fundamentally differs from that of Melanchthon, Bucer, and Bullinger on the question of the content of fallen man's natural knowledge of God, with Calvin denying and Melanchthon and the others affirming that fallen man possesses some natural knowledge of God's nature and will.
Second, Steinmetz notes that Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 isn’t just found in Calvin's commentaries on Romans – it is presented at length in the opening chapters of the Institutes, and Calvin relies on it in a number of later chapters of the Institutes. Notably, it is a central part of his teaching on depravity. Thus, Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 is important to his overall thought.
Third, Steinmetz notes that Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 raises a serious philosophical problem: Melanchthon, Bucer, and Bullinger apparently believed that fallen man could not be blamed for idolatry and other sins if he had no natural knowledge of God’s nature and will; but, on Calvin's reading of Romans 1:18-32, fallen man has no natural knowledge of God’s nature or will, and this seemed to exonerate the Gentiles, or at least those Gentiles who weren't familiar with the Torah. As Steinmetz notes, Calvin held that all sin is voluntary, and that fallen man cannot plead innocence on the grounds that he has inherited a corrupted soul. Melancthon, Bucer, and Bullinger surely agreed with Calvin on these points. Nonetheless, they apparently found it hard to understand how the Gentiles could be morally responsible for idolatry and other sins if they lacked any genuine knowledge of God's nature and will. So did many of their contemporaries. Steinmetz notes that most Protestants rejected Calvin's interpretation of Romans 1:18-32. These Protestants included numerous Lutherans and Anabaptists, but they also included Reformed thinkers like Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Musculus, Vermigli, and Hyperius. And, of course, they included Bucer and Bullinger. In other words, most of the early Reformed thinkers rejected Calvin’s reading of Romans 1:18-32. And, while some of these thinkers may not have shared the concerns of Melanchthon and others, I expect that most did.
Fourth, Steinmetz notes that Paul himself seems to argue that fallen man is blameworthy for idolatry and other sins only because he possesses some natural knowledge of the nature and will of God. In other words, it isn’t simply that Melanchthon and others have detected a potential philosophical problem with the reading of Romans 1:18-32 that Calvin defends. Rather, Paul himself seems aware of the problem, and he seems to take the position that Melanchthon and others thought he must take – i.e., Paul seems to take the position that fallen man is blameworthy for his sins because of his (admittedly limited) natural knowledge of God's nature and will. If Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, et al. are right, then Calvin’s reading of Romans 1:18-32 isn’t simply inadequate – it is positively mistaken. Of course, Calvin could adopt the position of Melanchthon and others that fallen man misapplies his natural knowledge of God's nature and will as a result of his depravity, and so is blameworthy for idolatry and other sins. But he couldn’t insist, as he did in the Institutes, that fallen man is so depraved that he lacks all natural knowledge of God's nature and will.
So, who is right? Calvin? Or Melancthon and the rest? The question may be academic – we are dead to sin either way – but Calvin and his contemporaries took it very seriously. Honestly, I am not sure what to say. I think that philosophy and experience favor Calvin, but I am also inclined to think that it is not Calvin but Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, and the rest who read Paul correctly. Still, I think that Calvin’s reading of Paul might be correct. The passage is a sticky one, and it is tricky to interpret. I will take some time to study the passage again next week. In the meantime, I will content myself with two remarks.
First, it is interesting that Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 was rejected not just by Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Catholics, but also by many of the greatest Reformed thinkers of the early Reformation. I am not sure whether all of them realized it, but by rejecting Calvin's reading of Romans 1:18-32, these Reformed thinkers committed themselves to rejecting a central part of Calvin's teaching on depravity. This is yet another reminder of the diversity of thought within the early Reformed tradition. This tradition was unified on many points, but it was not completely unified, and it is misleading (if not simply mistaken) to label the Reformed tradition, even in its earliest decades, as "Calvinism". Second, until we know how to read Romans 1:18-32, our understanding of Scripture's teaching on depravity will be incomplete in at least one crucial respect. In particular, we will not know whether fallen man possesses any genuine knowledge of God's nature or will apart from Holy Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment