Monday, February 09, 2009

Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom III

Dominic Bnonn Tennant
(Image from Bnonn's Profile)

In a comment to my first post on "Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom," Dominic Bnonn Tennant has posted a vigorous critique of my interpretation of Matthew 11:23. Due to lack of time, I will have to deal with the critique in several posts.

Let's recall the verse in question:
καὶ σύ Καφαρναούμ μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ ὅτι εἰ ἐν Σοδόμοις ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν σοί ἔμεινεν ἂν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον (Morphological Greek New Testament)

And thou, Capernaum, which unto the heaven wast exalted, unto hades shalt be brought down, because if in Sodom had been done the mighty works that were done in thee, it had remained unto this day; (Young's Literal Translation)
Bnonn -- as he is commonly known online (pronounced "non") -- begins with my own words:
Capernaum is to be punished for having chosen the wrong response, differently than Sodom would have chosen in a similar case.
Bnonn restates my point in his own words:
Indeed. Let me rephrase your words back to you: Capernaum is to be punished because they chose sinfully.
He then quotes me again:
Look at the biblical statement, which -- in its larger textual context -- effectively means that Capernaum will be condemned because Sodom would have repented (cf. verse 20). The "because" here specifies the reason for Capernaum's condemnation, namely, that Sodom would have repented.
Bnonn maintains that this does not follow, arguing:
Capernaum will be condemned because they chose sinfully. Not because Sodom would have repented. How does the latter follow? Why would the fact that Sodom would have repented function as a reason for condemning Capernaum? Condemnation is grounded in wilfully choosing what is wrong; not in some kind of comparison to other sinners. The comparison can certainly emphasize the depravity; but it does not function as a grounds for condemnation.
The objection that Bnonn raises here follows from my manner of expression. I was trying to stay close to the wording of Matthew 11:23:
And thou, Capernaum, which unto the heaven wast exalted, unto hades shalt be brought down, because if in Sodom had been done the mighty works that were done in thee, it had remained unto this day; (Young's Literal Translation)
One could raise a similar objection to this verse that Bnonn has raised to my statement above. Why should Capernaum be brought down because Sodom would have remained to this day? As Bnonn rightly points out, "Condemnation is grounded in wilfully choosing what is wrong; not in some kind of comparison to other sinners." Yet, a comparison has been made.

I had attempted to explain this comparison by stating that "the 'because' here specifies the reason for Capernaum's condemnation, namely, that Sodom would have repented." Perhaps a better way of stating this would have been to say that Capernaum had been offered a choice to repent and could have repented. The comparison to Sodom is offered as evidence that the choice had been offered and that the choice had been a free one because if the same mighty works had been done in Sodom, it would have repented. My interpretation here is that since the choice was free, Capernaum therefore has no excuse.

That's my understanding of the comparison used in Matthew 11:23's because-clause. I don't know if this clarification allows us to move on to the next point or not, so I'll wait to see Bnonn's response.

Labels: , ,

8 Comments:

At 5:48 AM, Blogger Dominic Bnonn Tennant said...

Hi Jeffery. If I understand you correctly, we're in agreement. Let me restate what I think you're saying, so as to be sure:

Jesus' condemnation of Capernaum is grounded in their own sinful choice to reject him. Their condemnation is extremely severe because they are extremely depraved. Ie, even Sodom—the exemplar of a corrupt and evil city—would not have gone so far as Capernaum did had Jesus performed the same works there. The "because" isn't grounding the condemnation in the comparison, but in what the comparison shows: namely, that Capernaum is unprecedentedly depraved.

Regards,
Bnonn

 
At 6:49 AM, Blogger David C. Innes said...

But what does depravity mean, except that one has an especially strong love for evil, which of course compromises (in fact obliterates) one's freedom to make a spiritually righteous choices. But it is clearly the purpose of the passage to express how sunk in depravity these people are. Jesus compares them to Sodom in order to make this point to them, and perhaps also awaken their hardened consciences. He is not addressing the question of free will and divine sovereignty. It is not the issue Jesus is addressing.

Nonetheless, it presupposes an understanding of the relationship between these two things. What doctrine on man, what theological anthropology lies behind what Jesus says here? Fair question.

Inability and responsibility can be compatible. That is at the heart of your concern here, Jeffery, no? Consider a drunk driver. He is incapable of controlling his car. He cannot drive in a straight line. When he hits and kills someone (pedestrian, oncoming driver), he is nonetheless responsible. His inability to control the car and use it as it was designed to be used with proper respect for other people does not absolve him. Of course, his in ability results from a prior decision to intoxicate and thus incapacitate himself.

So too with sinners in general. In the state of sin, man is non posse non peccare, unable not to sin. But this does not absolve him from responsibility when he does what is evil in sight of God or when he rejects the gospel when God puts it before his conscience. Here too we have inability combined with responsibility. But that inability results from a prior decision to sin rather than obey. Each of us made that decision in Adam who was our federal or covenant head when he sinned in the garden. Thus, he acted in our place. His lapse was our lapse. This of course is the doctrine of original sin.

There is much I could say in defense of that doctrine, but by virtue of it we are culpable for our hardness of heart by which we both sin and reject the only remedy for sin.

This discussion is getting spread out over several posts, and I'm not sure how profitable it is for your readers for me to go back to previous posts and add discussion.

 
At 9:36 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Bnonn, I agree that the verse implies that Capernaum is worse than Sodom in its rejection of Jesus. I don't yet know the full implications of the term "depraved," but maybe I can go along with that.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 9:45 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

David, you're right about spreading this discussion out. Perhaps I'd better not add new entries until some conclusions are reached.

My problem is twofold: I like to post a blog entry every day, but I lack sufficient time for posting entries, making comments, and meeting life's demands.

Like right now.

I'd like to say something in a comment about your drunk-driver example, but I have to prepare my class. Perhaps later.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 9:56 AM, Blogger David C. Innes said...

Quite frankly, I don't know how you do what you do. I have been assuming that you incorporate the literary posts, like those on Milton, into your curriculum, or that they are part of your research, or that they serve some other double duty.

 
At 10:21 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

David, posting on Milton does double-duty and generates one or two publications per year. Similar with Medieval and Renaissance posts -- I've recently finished an article on Don Quixote.

Other topics are for understanding the world in which I find myself -- such as the posts on Islamism (but those have also fed into the curricula in social-studies courses that I've sometimes taught).

But theological and philosophical topics are intended for helping me to make metaphysical sense of my existence. These topics take more time, for I have to think very, very precisely about things in which I have little expertise. So, I have to spread those posts out over time in which to think.

An overarching aim is to improve my writing, on all levels. Included among these levels are my attempts at poetry, which either fail or succeed, and others are perhaps the best judges of that.

How do I do it all? I get up at 3 or 4 in the morning and live with being a bit tired -- burning the candle at both ends and thanking Emily Dickinson for the justification.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 9:55 AM, Blogger David C. Innes said...

That would make a good post: "Why I Do What I Do."

 
At 10:37 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Yes, perhaps I ought to post on that -- and tag others to post likewise.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 

Post a Comment

<< Home