Paradise Lost - Universitatea "Emanuel"

64
PERICHORESIS 2/2 (2004)
CHRISTOPHER J. DONATO
theology, I intend to focus on one of his great theological misstatements,
which in turn brings his reading of Paradise Lost into question. Precision,
in this case, would create a deterrent to exaggeration rather than boredom.
Though it will undoubtedly pose a challenge to our preconceived categorical
boundaries, the alternative, under/over-statement, can muddle arguments,
as well as dangerously perpetuate false theological implications. In other
words, precision is crucial if studies in Milton’s theology are to persuade.
Conversations over a pint at the local pub may not be the most suitable
place for such pedantry, but this is the stuff of which academic journals are
made. John Shawcross wisely warns against the academic laziness of
scholars that think “all Reformed Protestants of the early seventeenthcentury
were to be categorized as Calvinist or Arminian only.” 5 This is not
merely an attempt to “foster precision in discussions of Milton’s theology,”
this is a call to examine the self, for in the end it is what holds back many
scholars from overstating (or understating) the facts, despite their
inclinations to do otherwise. 6
It is no small wonder, then, why with one fell swoop Stephen Fallon
manages to undermine his own argument by de-emphasizing the difference
between Calvinists and Arminians on one of their foundational tenets: the
depravity of man. 7 In doing so, we see that Fallon misunderstands the
interdependency of the so-called “five points” (for both parties). He writes
concerning the doctrine of depravity under the rubric of seventeenthcentury
debate: “Fallen human beings can do no good without the aid of
grace. There is no disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians on this
point.” 8 Indeed, though the differences are implicit, Fallon’s
misinterpretation acts as a simple voice box for the Arminian argument.
What does he make of the seventeenth-century polemic levelled against
Arminians that accuses them of Pelagianism? (and later semi-
Pelagianism). 9 The debates were not simply over the question of free will, 10
rather, they focused on the extent one’s moral ability (before regeneration)
could strive after spiritual good. Ironically, total depravity, the point on
which Fallon exercises the least amount of precision, is the very one upon
which the Calvinist’s inability to resist saving grace as well as the
Arminian’s ability to resist saving grace rests.
To be fair, Fallon does attempt to define Milton’s supposed Arminianism
in continental terms, making him to be a virtual Jacobus Arminius in
relation to predestination. 11 Arminians, however, could hardly agree among
themselves on the doctrine of original sin during the seventeenth-century.
Arminius has traditionally been understood to have held a more abysmal
view of humanity than the next generation of Arminian thinkers after his
death in 1609. Many historical theologians have also chosen to distinguish
between the two, calling the former “evangelical,” and the latter “rational.” 12
In order to maintain brevity, we will only mention a few of the more
important points. Basically, the rational Arminians denied that guilt
accompanied natural inability (to do any spiritual good). They further held
that it was only just that God provide universal and sufficient grace, since