Saturday, August 15, 2015

The Noetic Effects of Sin (continued)



noetic
nəʊˈɛtɪk
adjective
formal

adjective: noetic
relating to mental activity or the intellect.


Sentence: "the noetic quality of a mystical experience refers to the sense of revelation"

Origin: mid 17th century: from Greek noētikos, from noētos ‘intellectual’, from noein ‘perceive’.

  • First it is important to understand this teaching from the perspective of apologetics because we need to know realistically the state of the unregenerate heart and mind, what effect sin has had on the person we are trying to reach on behalf of Christ. "Know your enemy" in other words. Not that an unregenerate person himself is so much an enemy in a physical sense, but that his/her mind is definitely at war or in enmity against God and his truth- even at the same time as they may feel they are perfectly "open minded " and may imagine they are neutral about the question of the reality of God. The enemy within the unregenerate person is the carnal heart/mind. And having become Christians- we still have to war against the carnal mind, the carnal nature within ourselves
     "The mind governed by the flesh (the carnal mind) is hostile (is enmity) to God; it does not submit to God's law. nor can it do so." Romans 8:7

Note that it doesn't just say- "the mind governed by the flesh does not desire to submit to God- as if, had it happened that we desired rightly- we could then submit to God's law. What it in fact does say emphatically, is that "it does not submit", and "nor can it do so", it cannot submit to God. Where the mind goes, the person follows.
  • Secondly. this doctrine you will not hear any mention of in possibly any other church. You will not hear it preached in perhaps 90 percent (or even higher) of evangelical Churches in New Zealand. It is a particular doctrine of the reformers. That is to say only reformed churches preach this. You may hear it in a more traditional Lutheran church, a traditional Presbyterian church, a reformed Baptist church and some others. But it is definitely not a new thing or a modern "invention" of contemporary theology. It is clearly evident in Augustine's writings of the 3rd (4th?) century and in various church fathers and movements all the way through church history. But- and this is the really important bit- it is amply testified to in scripture itself- which is of course our ultimate test, not only of orthodoxy, but of reality. We just cannot trust our own views, our own (or others) experiences and opinions. Even as I say this, I am sure you will all admit, only God sees things as they really are. And the reason for this is not only that we have a finite capacity for knowledge, but that- and more importantly-we are all suffering the noetic effects of sin. Yes Christians also. If this was not the case, why would so many passages of scripture talk about "the renewal of your mind". Romans 12:2 Why else then would we need to "cast down vain or futile imaginations"? 2 Corinthians 10:5  This is the reason why scripture talks about "their foolish heart was darkened" Romans 1:21, or "their heart was hardened" Mark 6:52, John 12:40, Ephesian 4:18 and many others like it.
  • Thirdly, this doctrine is closely allied with the doctrine or teaching about Total Depravity, and which is also a distinctly reformed teaching, relating to Original Sin. We know what "depravity" means. In relation to total depravity and original sin, it means debased, or corrupt. It means that a persons being, their nature has taken a backwards or retrograde step. It is analogous to something good morphed into something degraded like a mutation that is self repeating, self perpetuating.


DEPRAVITY- moral corruption, wickedness.
corruption, corruptness, vice, perversion, pervertedness, deviance, degeneracy, degradation, immorality, shamelessness, debauchery, dissipation, dissoluteness, turpitude, loucheness, profligacy,
licentiousness, lewdness, lasciviousness, salaciousness, lechery, lecherousness, prurience, obscenity, indecency, libertinism, sordidness;
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
the innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin.



The word "innate" mentioned in relation to Christian Theology above, refers to the fact that this sinful predisposition is not merely a question of our will to do wrong freely, but that this will, desire and intention to do wrong is inborn, part of our makeup, inbred, congenital, inherent, intrinsic to us. That is, that sin is part of our makeup, our "DNA". It is in our nature to sin and it is this sin nature which is self perpetuating. If you are a sinner because of a sin nature, then your children will be born that way. Just as a leopard with spots, gives birth to another leopard "with spots", and it is bound to do so. And as the Bible says: "Can a leopard change his spots?" or "people do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A tree is identified by its fruit". If something springs from you "by nature" then it occurs as naturally, and spontaneously and as irrevocablyas an apple must come from an apple tree- if there is no external intervention. If sin is innate to fallen human nature, then we, "as sinners by nature" can no more avoid sin (in our fallen state) than we can avoid breathing. It is only when we fully understand the helpless condition of both ourselves in that state and those around us we begin to appreciate the miraculous and breathtakingly merciful reality of God's saving grace in Christ. Grace precedes obedience.


Ephesians 2:3 says “All of us also lived among them ("them" being those referred to as "children of disobedience" Eph.2:2) at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”
Why were we deserving of God's wrath just like the rest? Because ultimately we came from the same "tribe"- we were all at one time "children of disobedience" because our common ancestors Adam and Eve- when they sinned- their nature changed. And we inherited that nature. So we were, before Christ, helpless and "dead in our trespasses and sins". We sinned by gratifying or falling in with the desires of that sinful nature, we did it willingly. But it wasn't just the fact that we sinned- we did it-and therefore are guilty as charged. Nor was it merely our willingness to sin that justified God's righteous anger towards us. "The devil made me do it" doesn't wash with God, our responsibility is real and culpable. No one needed to hold a gun to our head while we sinned. But the scripture informs us plainly that "we were by nature deserving of wrath". The distinction here is that our very fallen nature is detestable to God and worthy of being subject to His anger.  (There are always objections to this which I will come to further on)

It was Arthur Schopenhauer who said

 "Life is short and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth" 


He also said:
 "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" and a variant translation is " We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must". I don't know if he said a lot else worth noting but I thought that is worth quoting. Free but bound.

Some may object that depravity is not uniquely a doctrine of the Reformed Church, but it is when coupled with the word "Total". Total depravity does not mean, as I mentioned- that one is as wicked as one could be. Thankfully God, for most of us, restrains that sort of total corruption. (Even Hitler was kind to his dogs) But it is total in the sense that every part of a person is affected by sin. There has been some corruption in every facet of our being. And that is where the doctrine of the Noetic Effect of Sin comes in. Just as sin has affected our desires- so that we want what we should not, and impacted on our will- so that we do what we should not, and that which we should do- we don't do. It has also affected our knowledge. It matters not at all to me what churches or denominations or what reformers, whether Calvin, Luther or anyone said with regard to these doctrines. The essential questions are: Do they represent the truth? Is this the correct understanding of scripture? So hence the analogy of the poisoned chalice. A glass may contain pure water, but add just a little poison of the right sort, and  the whole glass is poisoned, though the glass does not contain all poison.

The word "determinism"has been used, but that's not really news is it? "Can a man by thinking add one cubit to his stature?" I think it would be nice to be 1.8 meteres tall but my height is unfortunately determined by my genes. Perhaps it would have been nice to be born to rich parents in Laguna Beach, but I had no say in the matter. Can you think of a period in human history in which you would rather have been born? Perhaps growing up as a kid in Bethlehem in the time of Christ may have had an advantage, but if you think of Christ's own brother who did not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ until rather late in the picture, I rather doubt it. We are determined in so many ways anyway. Human freedom is real enough, but it is not absolute.

With regard to determinism take this for example:

Ask the question- Who was responsible for Jesus' death?

  • Well truly the Jews called out to Pilate "Crucify him" repeatedly. And I think also said "let his blood be upon us" or words to that effect.
  • Pilate himself though he ceremoniously washed his hands of it, still ordered it to be so. 
  • The Roman soldiers executed the orders.
  • Scripture informs us that Herod was also a party to it. Acts 4:28 
  • The Gentiles and the people of Israel. Acts 4:28
  • We ourselves necessitated the death of Christ as sinners (He was bruised for our transgressions- Isaiah) 
  • Jesus himself was responsible. "the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep", "I lay down my life...no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down myself" John 10 
  • God was responsible. Acts 4:28
Now look exactly at what it says in Acts 4:28-

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. "







Not just a general vague sort of plan, but specific people were called by name to do what God had foreordained them to do. Did that mean they were forced? No, Pilate made his decision perfectly naturally based on the well known principle of political expediency. ( I know he's not guilty, but if I don't put Jesus to death the Jews will go nuts and I'll be in trouble from my superiors for not keeping control of the Jewish "rabble".) He acted perfectly according to his own nature. He acted freely and yet his act with regard to Jesus was determined by God. We are never so free that we can put ourselves out of the reach of God, but neither are we so determined that we are automatons, we act freely within the bounds of our own nature.





Another Biblical example of the noetic effect of sin, and I think Brett may have referred to it, is in the story of Lazarus in the "bosom of Abraham" and the rich man tormented in the fires of hell. Irrespective of our thoughts about a literal hell, the question must be asked what is the point of the parable? The rich man who had died wanted to get word to his family to warn them not to end up in the state he was in. He wanted them saved from the same fate. Evidently Christ believed that it was due not to a lack of evidence they already had, that would prevent them from entering the same state as the rich man. In fact Jesus said, by implication, that the Gospel of salvation was clear enough, apparent enough, evident enough in the writings and testimony of "Moses and the Prophets", (essentially the Hebrew bible, the Old Testament) by which to be saved. This must have serious implications for the Jews even today on that consideration. But the rich man continued to insist that wasn't enough, they needed more evidence, more certainty, more scripture, a personal envoy. Finally, Jesus relates that Abraham (who is the father of all the faithful- Rom 4:16) told the rich man-





"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." The noetic effect of sin is such that to the person who wills not to take knowledge of an indisputable fact such as the miracle of the resurrection, though he is even a firsthand witness of it, he will yet cry "I need more proof". And in so doing speak to the truth of that which Paul wrote saying in Romans 1:18:





"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.…" (My emphasis)





Instead of rejoicing in all truth, we accept only those truths that don't cost too much, that don't cramp our style, that still leave our sense of personal sovereignty intact.


Whether we like it or not, accept it or not we are bound by our human nature until such time as we depart this "mortal coil" and this is why we must "put on Christ"in the meantime.





Now some may object to the idea that if I am a sinner by nature then why does God hold me to account? Why am I judged evil when the sin I commit is freely committed by me because I can in fact do no other- since sin is "built-in". If I am a sinner by nature, then when I do what comes naturally to me why do I face the wrath of God? As Al Mohler points out, when a lion tears the throat out of an antelope, does the lion suddenly pull up short and say "whoa, where did that come from?" as if somehow he was forced into doing it? Or do we call that lion wicked for doing what comes naturally? Can the lion be anything or do other than what its own nature dictates what it must do? So then how does God condemn those who are subject to a sin-nature? St. Paul in fact anticipates this understandable objection to being culpable and deserving God's wrath for having a corrupt nature which was not of our own doing, and which we cannot avoid. (See all of Romans 9, particularly v14 and 19,20.) The reality is that the moral law, is an objective moral standard for God's creatures that are moral agents. That's us. It makes no ultimate difference to our guilt if we don't know what is right, if we don't believe in the objective moral law, or even if we are now (since the fall) incapable of what we (humanity) were originally capable of. The moral law is an unchangable standard. Something that is objectively real, and objectively true does not rely on our input or understanding to exist. Nor does God require our permission to exact the consequences of sin. This may sound stupid but can a person die of typhoid when that person has no knowledge of it? When he doesn't even know the name of the disease he's dying of? Of course! And just as truly "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" are always and at any moment on a precipice, on the edge of eternity and worthy of his wrath, whether the state of their own mind is capable of knowing that or not. And whether or not the state of their nature is now capable of obedience or not. That's the reality. ("Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" is the title of America's most famous sermon by Johnathon Edwards, an early American preacher and theologian) The actions of our ancestors, Adam and Eve, by whom sin came into the world resulted in this catastrophic fall from God's order. And we are subject now to the same nature that came upon them at the fall. But this is not how God originally created Adam and Eve. Consider the tragic circumstances of a heroin addict who falls pregnant. The addict is now not really in control of their own life, and now their irresponsible action has resulted in a foetus that is also an addict. For all the tragedy of it, nothing changes the consequences of those actions, utterly regrettable though they are. The developing child is born an addict. It is not responsible for that addiction, and yet it suffers the results, the fate of its mothers actions as surely as if the actions were its own.

As grim and as relentlessly hopeless as that state of affairs is from the human perspective, it is not the final curtain for humanity thanks to Christ.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." That is, when we were- like Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha in the tomb and three days dead and stinking- (without any inherent power of our own to come forth from the grave) Christ called, and his power that came by his word accompanied the command of his word, and we came forth into life.


Lastly I want to emphasize that the noetic effect of sin is present with us as Christians even as I write this, preventing us, or at least making it difficult to see, understand and know what we ought to. We especially cannot see our own blindspots, and for this cause we really do need each other, and an environment with wisdom in which we can be honest with each other and supportive at the same time. The question remains- having available what I believe are good scriptural evidences of these truths, good historical verification of their relationship to orthodox Christianity- will you therefor embrace it, or will the noetic effect still take its toll? :) I wold reccommend to watch again the Al Mohler video from Youtube entitled "The Way The World Thinks" and also a video by John MacArthur on Total Depravity Remember the noetic effect is still at work whenever we have sufficient evidence and warrant to believe what we ought to- yet still find a resistance within us that will not allow us to concur with that which is in fact undeniable. That is the nature of the beast. That is the noetic effect of sin on our knowledge. On our epistemological efforts. We cite lack of evidence when it is not a question of needing more proof or certainty but an unwillingness to concede what is obvious because of a perception lurking in the heart that we may have to get to work, or that there may be other implications that we don't want to face if we concede this truth.




"To give truth to him that loves it not, is merely to give more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation"George MacDonald


My father once told me this sort of "sick" joke. A tradesman was visiting a local mental institution one day when he observed one of the patients going to and fro with an empty wheelbarrow. The problem was he was dragging the wheelbarrow upside down wherever he went. With a grin he could scarcely contain he gently went up to the man and instructed him in the correct use of the wheelbarrow. "See- turn it over like this and then it will work much better" he said. The patient, with a furtive look around responded: "Your'e crazy, if I do that someone will put something in it!"