THE UNITY OF GRACE AND NATURE

THE UNITY OF GRACE AND NATURE

J. Anthony Smith

The basis for the current prevailing philosophy upon which the western world acts is an assumption that only the particulars have meaning. As a practical matter, universal truths do not exist. In fact, present thought would deny that universals ever did exist or have any real meaning. If man once perceived that there was universal truth, it was because man was more primitive with a less developed philosophy. Even if we do admit to universal truth our actions belie our words since we do not use these truths as a consistent basis for our actions. According to Matthew 7:16 - 17 (NIV) “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.” Time after time the actions of our society as a whole show that the existence of universal truths has little to no influence on our decisions. We base our actions on what we think is right for the individual in their current situation. (Situational Ethics by Joseph Fletcher) Despite what we say our actions prove that we, as a society, do not truly believe in the universal truths.

To understand how we have come to this world view as a society, we must first go back to Aristotle and then forward to Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle and Aquinas are inextricably tied together both philosophically and historically. Aquinas lived at the time when, for the first time, access to all of the writings of Aristotle became available to the west. (A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas, Ralph McInery, page 42.) Aquinas studied and was a great admirer of Aristotle. In his Summa Theolicae Aquinas often quoted Aristotle and used Aristotle’s Gnostic philosophy and emphasis on the particulars to formulate his answers to the questions with which he wrestled. The conclusion of Thomas Aquinas’ reliance on Aristotle was to separate GRACE from NATURE. In effect, he made GRACE an upper story and NATURE a lower story. This can be pictured as shown below and as in the diagram later in this writing.

GRACE, the higher: God the Creator; heaven and heavenly things; the unseen and its influence on the earth; unity, or universals or absolutes which give existence and moral meaning.

Nature, the lower: the created; earth and earthly things; the visible and what happens normally in the cause-and-effect universe; what man, as man, does on the earth; diversity, or individual things, the particulars, or the individual acts of man. (How Should We Then Live, Francis A. Schaeffer, page 55.)

Once this separation was made, people could feel free to act as they wished without  the inconvenient and nasty necessity of comparing how they act to what they say they believe. Aquinas’s love of Aristotle caused him to have an incomplete view of the fall of man. Aquinas “thought that the fall did not affect man as a whole but only in part. In his view the will was fallen or corrupted but the intellect was not affected.” (How Should We Then Live, Francis A. Schaeffer, page 52.) This is very much a Gnostic view of creation.

Francis Schaeffer noted this problem in his book How Should We Then Live. “The problem is often spoken of as the nature-versus-grace problem. Beginning with the man alone and only the individual things in the world (the particulars), the problem is how to find any ultimate and adequate meaning for the individual things. The most important thing for man is man himself. Without some alternate meaning for a person (for me, as an individual), what is the use of living and what will be the basis for morals, values, and law? If one starts from individual acts rather than with an absolute, what gives real certainty concerning what is right and what is wrong about an individual action.” (How Should We Then Live, Francis A. Schaeffer, page 55.)

There are those who disagree with Dr. Schaeffer. Norman L. Geisler in his book, Thomas Aquinas, An Evangelical Approach, page 61, states “as some, like Francis Schaeffer, have mistakenly argued, Aquinas does not actually separate faith and reason, although he does formally distinguish between them. He believes they are related, but the relation is not coercive.” The problem with this statement is that it is purely semantics. Using the term “formally distinguishes” instead of “separates” does not make the separation any less a fact. I will say however, that I do not believe Aquinas intended to separate grace and reason (nature) but that is where his philosophy led.

While I do believe Thomas Aquinas’ intent was the recognition of a realm available to Christians and non-Christians alike in which certain realities could be known by all.   The trouble with this approach is by trying to combine the teachings of a pagan philosopher with Christian theology, Aquinas had to lower the standards of Christian philosophy and theology. As a result of Aquinas’ incomplete (and erroneous) understanding of the fall of man, and by combining pagan and Christian philosophy, (resulting in his separating grace and nature), Western thought went in the direction of man could, starting with himself, use reason to answer all questions. This came to include man believing he could work out his own salvation.

All of this resulted in man traveling down a different path in his world view than God originally intended. Renaissance humanism came into being. I have refrain from saying that man went down a new path. I do not believe the path was new, but simply different from the path man had been following. There does seem to be a similarity between the actions and results of Aquinas teachings and the actions of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus so soundly condemned in Matthew 23:23-28.

“When his nature was integrated, then man could refrain from sinning either fatally or non-fatally, even without any grace-as-disposition; for we sin when we deviate from the standards of nature, and man with integrated natures could avoid doing that as long as help concerning them in their goodness processes without that, of course, man's very nature would collapse into nothingness). But now that his nature is distorted man also needs grace-as-disposition to heal the disorder, if he is to totally refrain from sin.” (Summa Theolicae, T. Aquinas, Volume 29, 109,8.)

The problem here is the implication that grace exists due to the fall of man. I want to stress that Aquinas does not explicitly so state, but the idea can be (and I believe, based on history, has been) derived from his statement.  If grace exists, that is the grace of God, it must have existed as a part of God’s very nature. To be the grace of God, grace could not have been created, or caused, by man's sin, but rather, man's sin necessitated that grace be manifested in a different manner. If Grace existed from the beginning (as a part of God) then grace was a part of the creation of God. If grace is a part of God's creation then man and nature (reason) must be inextricably bound with and to the Grace of God. If grace and nature are separated the resulting dichotomy sets up a tension that cannot be resolved without the re-integration man's world view of grace and nature. Without the recognition that God is the basis of both universal truth and the particulars of daily life the tension will continue and will get worse with time.

Having said all of this I must ask two questions. What has been the practical results of the separation (or the distinguishing) of grace and nature? Have a false dichotomy and tension been established, and if so how do we correct the situation?  To answer the first question I have generated the diagram below. I used thoughts from Dr. Shaeffer and added to them. By combining these thoughts with history I have attempted to explain what I think occurred.

 Line 1.

The first line shows what I believed was the original configuration. At this point grace and nature are totally integrated as a part of God’s creation.

Line 2.

The second line shows the perceived separation that was resulted of the teaching of Aquinas. Grace is an upper story separated from the creation (and nature or reason as a part of that creation) which is in a lower story. This effectively separates beliefs from actions, or the individual’s will from their intellect. A person may claim they believe in some moral absolute or universal “truth”, but that belief does not necessarily affect their actions.  This is because, in Aquinas’ opinion (and Aristotle’s) belief is a matter of will (which is fallen) but not necessarily intellect.

Line 3

In the third line grace (implying the Grace of God) has become synonymous with universals. I see the moral imperatives of God being supplanted by what are considered by society as being universally held truths. This means that there is no longer a baseline by which to judge our actions, but rather some abstract idea of truth, a truth that all men supposedly hold as some sort of species memory. (This has come to be known as an enlightenment and rationalism.) This emphasis certainly began to happen with the Renaissance and has continued to our time. The acceptance of the theory of evolution as a fact disproves the notion of a species held memory. If the theory of evolution is correct there is no reason or basis for such a memory of universally held truths. The notion of universally held truths would not assure the survival of the fittest but would assure the weaker members of the species would continue to exist and procreate thus watering down the gene pool and causing the species to die out. We want to say we will act kindly toward one another because of an abstract idea of universally held truths which exist because of our acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution. Now we have another dichotomy and additional tension. If Darwin’s theory of evolution is not correct there is still no reason or basis for species held memory sine either everything is a total accident or God created the world. In either case species held memory is a non-starter.

Line 4 & 5

The fourth and fifth lines show the logical outcome of Line 3. If there is no baseline for judging our actions, then Grace or even universal truth has no meeting, and nature or reason takes over both the upper and lower stories. Now the basis for action is what is consistent with the natural or reasonable, thing to do, but reason without Grace is no longer reasonable. The baseline is gone and we are left with a shifting basis of truth upon which to build our world view and actions. The reason for this is that by separating Grace and nature we have effectively dismissed the baseline of righteousness that comes from God by Grace and therefore no longer have any real foundation for determining our actions. (Notice that I said righteousness, not morals or ethics there is a difference. True morality and ethics are only a subset of righteousness and cannot exist apart from God’s righteousness.) “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened onto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand, and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:26-27, K J V.)  Truth becomes ever-changing based on what is culturally and socially acceptable at the time. Once this has happened we can legitimately ask with Pilate “What is the truth?” (Luke 18:38 NIV.) The answer will be the same “Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:. . . . “ (John 14:6 K JV.)

Line 6

The sixth line shows the new upper and lower stories that were put in place. I believe this new dichotomy occurred over time and somewhat concurrently with lines 4 and 5 of the diagram. This is a bit of a moving target.  Because man artificially separated Grace and nature, and sees only the will and not the intellect as fallen the upper and lower stories have become relative and man (corporately or individually) can substitute, in either story, whatever they want at any moment in time and space. 

Nature has now become the upper story and the particulars the lower story. The problem is that man cannot accept this as a basis for being. Since Grace is a part of the nature of God, and therefore a part of the creation, and that creation includes man, man cannot survive without a basis for his actions. Because man does not want to recognize God as the basis for his actions, he has placed nature or reason in the upper story. This has the same results as those noted in lines 4 and blind above. This is only a substitution and change of format, no substantive change as been made.

Before I go further I must make clear that I do not think man substitutes freely in either story. Philosophers and the general public would not allow that to happen. Changes are made over time however. They usually happen slowly, so slowly that many people are not aware of the change until they reflect on what was is compared to what is.  That the changes come to be accepted slowly over time makes it very difficult to open people’s eyes to what has happened. People are comfortable with the status quo and see no need to change. Generations of rationalization have built great walls around the truth.

Line 7 & Line 8

Lines 7 and 8 show the same condition as the fourth and fifth lines. This is moving totally into Aristotle’s world view that only the particulars matter. The particulars have taken over.  This means that there is no basis for consistent moral or ethical action, not even the false shifting basis of nature or reason. Man has no reason for being, no basis for truth, no universal upon which to predicate and affirm his been, and moved into a state of despair and despondency. This is where I see we are now as a creation and society. How do we go back to the original condition all the unity of grace and nature? I do not have an answer, but on an individual basis it is a matter of belief and acceptance in Jesus as the Christ. 

There is still the problem with the world view with which we were raised. We inherit a particular world view and tend to keep it, at least basic portions of it, even after we become a Christian. This causes stress as we try to live Christian lives with an un-Christian world view. I am sure my assertion that the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas maintained and perpetuated an un-Christian world view will find much disagreement among many students of philosophy as well as many theologians.  I rest my assertion on Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2 and the letter of James. 

One of the problems in the church at Corinth was their tendency to separate their “spirituality” from their actions. This led to church members, who claimed to be Christians, frequenting the temple prostitutes, getting drunk when celebrating the Lord’s Supper, etc. Since these people felt they were belonged to Christ spiritually, what they did with their bodies didn’t matter.  Paul made it quite clear that this was not (and is not) the case. A person cannot separate their spiritual and physical actions. Christ addressed the same issue in Matthew 6:24 when He said “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”  (KJV) 

Thomas Aquinas made a fatal error when he tried to find a common meeting ground between Greek philosophy (as found in the writings of Aristotle) and Christian philosophy. As Paul pointed out in his letters to the Corinthians there is no common ground. At the beginning of the first letter to the Corinthians Paul said “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (I Corin. 2:5  KJV) Paul is stating unequivocally that there is a vast difference between the philosophies of man and the Word of God. Remember that Paul is writing to a church group the tended to separate Grace and Nature (just as Aquinas did much later).

James also dismissed the notion of separating Grace and nature. In his case he spoke of Faith and works. James was very clear that faith and works could not be separated. The burden of the letter of James is to show that true faith is alive and active. Biblical faith is not a detached acceptance of an orthodox creed. Neither is it one-half of the requirement for salvation, the other half of which is works. Rather than proclaiming a doctrine of faith plus works. James was arguing for a different kind of faith, a faith that is alive and shows its vitality by its actions. This is a faith that is not separated from nature, but rather it is bringing man’s nature into completeness with the spiritual through the Holy Spirit.

For the majority of the world, that stress does not exist or is minimal because they have not accepted Jesus as the Christ. The original tension continues because, whether we admit or not, we are the creation of God. The problem is, that we are a creation that chooses to live outside of the will and structure of the Creator. We must work on the problem of how to make the reason for this tension known, recognized, and bring the creation back to acceptance of the original intent. Back to the realization that grace and nature (reason) are a unity, a unity bound up within the character of God.

The question might also rise, why does this make a difference? Why do we care what Thomas Aquinas did back in the 1200 AD? The reason this is important is that where we are in our society philosophically is based on the thinking, work and writings of Thomas Aquinas. How can we know what we are, who we are, and why we are what and who we are, without knowing where we came from philosophically. An important part of knowing where we come from as a culture and society is that, through Christ, we do not need to continue in false philosophies, world views, or beliefs.  

(Adapted from How Should We Then Live by Dr. Francis Schaeffer)