 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 3/17/2004 11:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | The following is an essay I wrote on Total Depravity, based on a article written by John Piper at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html. Feel free to tell me what you think, be you a fellow OVTer like me or a Calvinist or what have you. I tried to be gracious and scholarly in my article, so I would like feedback on the effectiveness of my approach. Thanks, guys!
P.S. It's pretty long.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Total Depravity:
The Tulip's Poisoned Root
By Phil Aldridge
It has been said that one's view of sin will determine one's view of grace. As such, people have been debating their views of salvation theology for a least a couple months now, and there seems to be little resolution in sight. One of the main issues of the debate is the fundamental tenet of Depravity. All of the peripheral issues of the salvation theology debate orbit around one's view of sin and its effect on one's soul and the world at large. Calvinism posits that human beings are totally depraved from birth. Let us briefly examine the finer points of Total Depravity. According to John Piper, the doctrine of Total Depravity holds that:
1. Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God.
2. In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
3. Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.
4. Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.
Based on this view of man's nature, the Calvinist will conclude that man could never willingly choose to have a relationship with Jesus, and thus be saved. From there, the next logical idea is that, since man cannot choose God, God must choose man first. And since we know that not everyone is going to be in Heaven, logically God also chooses to let some people perish. Progressing onward, we see that a man who hasn't be chosen will be unable to choose God, and thus, a man that has been chosen will be unable to resist God. And finally, we shall come to see that if God has chosen us before we were created, we could never lose the salvation that we never actually found in the first place. God gave it to us and thus we could never give it away. If you are familiar with salvation theology studies, you will recognize the case for TULIP. You will also recognize that we arrive at each letter because of the logical implications of the letter before it. This means that the T, Total Depravity, is the foundation of the rest of the philosophy. Now, let us examine this doctrine.
The first assertion of Total Depravity is that "Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God". This assertion is based on verses such as Rom 3:9-18, among others. According to Paul, "There is no one righteous… no not even one" and "there is no one who seeks God". Stirring condemnation of humanity, is it not? It does seem to imply that human beings are not essentially good and in fact are prone to sin and sin often. But does it really prove that man absolutely cannot want to find God on his own at all? Barely a chapter prior to these verses, Paul states in 2:14-15 that the Gentiles who don't know the law often follow the law by nature and that the law is written upon their hearts and that their conscience both accuses and defends them. It seems to me that men are born with a conscience that convicts them whether they know God or not. If truly no one desires to follow God, why does our conscience convict us to do just that? Also, examine 2 Peter 3:5 "For [the blatant scoffers] deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water…". The first part of this verse implies that the scoffers do not accept the truth because they willingly suppress it. This does not imply a fallen nature so much as willing rebellion.
I would posit that, when reading through the first 3 chapters of Romans, we are to take everything in the order it is presented. Paul starts by stating that no one has an excuse for not following God (wouldn't claiming Total Depravity be an excuse? Perhaps.). Paul goes on to say that people rejected him first and as such, he let them have what they want. He explains that the Jews are just as guilty as the Gentiles of breaking God's laws and then goes on to say that no one is righteous, that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I think it is a gross misapplication of Romans 3:9-18 to claim that it is an authoritative and literal explanation of man's fallen nature. The context doesn't really speak to that at all. Even some of the verbiage of the passage implies that man is not born without the ability to please God, such as verse 12, which states all have turned away. Well you can only turn away from something you were initially facing, yes? I believe, since the passage is quoted poetry, perhaps it is not meant to be a literal statement of theology but rather a poetic way of saying that no one is less sinful than another. We've all blown it and only faith in Christ can fix it. Later, I will explain why not all of Paul's words are to be understood in their literal sense.
The statement also neglects verses such as those in Acts 2 when Peter is evangelizing. In verse 38, Peter says "Repent, be baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit". Isn't that order interesting? If none those people had the Holy Spirit prior to baptism and repentance, how did they manage to turn to God? Also, in verse 40, Peter commands them saying, "save yourselves from this wicked and perverse generation!". If Total Depravity were true, how could those people save themselves, especially if they didn't have the Holy Spirit present in them until after baptism. Acts 5:32 says the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God. Notice it does not say that those who have the Holy Spirit will be able to do good. It seems that man is not in as hopeless a condition as Mr. Piper concludes.
How about the idea that "In his total rebellion everything man does is sin". This idea comes from Romans 14:23 which states "…whatever is not done in faith is sin". I believe this is taken out of the context it was written in, namely that if you think it is wrong to eat meat and you do it, regardless of its legality, you have sinned because you did something you thought was wrong. The faith mentioned is faith in the liberty of believers to engage in behavior that is not sinful. Piper also mentions what Paul says in 7:18, that "For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh…". However, Piper fails to include the second half of 7:18 which says "…for I want to do good, but cannot", emphasis mine. So we see here that even though righteousness eludes us, it isn't for lack of trying. Even Paul, who is saved, wants to do good but cannot consistently do it. I think the point Paul is driving at is that even when we want to do good, it is difficult and we often fail at it. Obviously Paul doesn't literally mean that he cannot ever do good. And, as we see from Romans 2:14-15 again, even the unsaved man has a conscience that pushes him towards the good, thus, sometimes we do good deeds because we inherently know they are good, even if we don't know why. We also do bad deeds when we know they are bad. We are born in a fallen state, but God has written directions back to Himself on our hearts.
Interestingly, the passage goes on to say in verse 22 "For I delight in the Law of God in my inner being, but I see a different law at work in my [body]…". So here we have a case of someone desiring God but also being tempted by a sinful nature. This seems to be a much more acceptable view of the human being. An inner conscience trapped within a nature that tends towards sin. And, if Paul was speaking absolutely literally in Romans 3:10, then how can he say he desires God's law later in the same letter?! Romans 3:10 says no one desires God, logically including Christians. If it's literal, it makes a liar out of Paul in 7:22. If it's not literal, then perhaps Piper's understanding of the sin nature needs to be reexamined. This is the problem with using poetic statements and hyperbole as definitive theological commentary. In any case, there is absolutely no scriptural support for the idea that every action of man is sinful. Look at a verse like Jonah 3:10 which shows God changing his mind about destroying Ninevah when its people turned from evil and started living right. If only God can make our deeds good, then whole story of Jonah is pretty useless. God clearly changed his mind because of the good deeds of people. 2 Corinthians 5:10 says that all men will be repaid for their deeds, "both good and bad".
Piper goes on to say that "Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total". He quotes Romans 8:6-8 " For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God". Again, taken at face value, this seems to say it all. However, I think it's assuming a bit much to claim this verse explicitly says that man can do no good apart from God. The word "outlook" is used in a more "worldview" kind of sense. It is not simply that the flesh is preoccupied with sin, rather the flesh takes a sinful worldview. Of course, we like sinful things and we think sinful thoughts. Our nature, though we have a convicting conscience, also tends towards evil as well. However, that does not mean that we absolutely cannot choose to submit. We simply don't always want to, whether we are saved or unsaved. The other issue with using this passage is that it is in the middle of a clear delineation between Christians and the unsaved. Here Paul is contrasting the fleshly mindset with the spiritual one. He then goes on to tell us how to achieve a spiritual mindset, through relationship in Christ. And how do we access that relationship? Paul says by confessing with our mouths and believing in our hearts. Once again, I think this verse is misapplied in the context of the whole of Romans. (Also, I would submit that we can be "in the flesh" whether we are Christians or not. I think being in the flesh refers to being sinful. Christians and non-Christians can be sinful. Likewise, they can act rightly).
Also, Piper quotes Ephesians 2:1-3 which says we are "dead in our sins" and by nature "children of wrath". Piper takes "children of wrath" to mean children destined for wrath, though it could just as accurately be translated children characterized by wrath. In any event, I don't see why the phrase "dead in your sins" has to be taken to it's most extreme literal sense. Paul has a certain writing style where he often uses metonymy (substituting one word or phrase for another closely related), synecdoche (substituting parts for the whole or vice versa), and hyperbole (exaggeration for emphasis) to make his points more poetic and literary. He calls the Corinthians babies and tells them he's going to give them milk. He uses flesh to represent mortality or humanity. He refers to Christians as a sweet aroma to the Lord. Paul is not above using literary devices to get his point across, I don't see any evidence that the phrase couldn't be more figurative in meaning and simply imply that "you were as good as dead". Even one sin will alienate us from God without Christ as our sacrifice. So, from the minute of our first sin, we are as good as dead.
Mr. Piper would also have to conclude that babies are born with a sin debt in order to claim that every single person is born dead from the fall. Indeed, Calvin himself said that infants were "odious" in the sight of God. This idea is certainly not found in scripture, in fact the Bible takes great pains to put the onus for sin on the individual sinner alone. Ezekiel 18:4 says that "The soul who sins is the one who will die" negating the idea of fathers passing on sins to their children. Later in verse 30 God says "Therefore I will judge each person according to his conduct…". Some will cite Romans 5:12 "Just as sin entered the world through [Adam]…" as proof that we are genetically sinful. However, that same verse says that sin spread to all people because "all sinned"! The Bible seems to reinforce that sin is spread by an individual's conduct not an individual's nature. Interestingly, sin was present prior to Adam and Eve eating the fruit. Let us not forget the serpent who tempted them. That was a sin. Satan's entire fall from grace was sin. The fact that Adam and Eve could be tempted at all means that even before eating the fruit, they had a tendency to sin. All this to say that it seems as though higher free beings such as angels and humans are all created with the capacity to sin, yet not created sinful prior to their actions. Things become sinful, they are not born sinful. Adam and Eve simply ushered in the spread of sin through humanity. It is clear, though, that they were created with the capacity to sin. How else could they be tempted?
Mr. Piper concludes his points with "Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment". This may be the only point that I am in agreement with Mr. Piper on. God demands perfection from us in order to have relationship with him. The slightest flaw or blemish disqualifies us from being in communion with God. However, Hell is only just as a punishment for wrongdoing if we are able to choose freely to do right or wrong. Mr. Piper claims that we are born sinful, that we are incapable of doing right, that none of us can please God at all, nor even want to. If this is the case, then Hell is extremely unjust. It is somewhat ironic that Mr. Piper's first premises lead to the opposite conclusion of his final one.
Imagine (as I often do) that I am a king of some country. Now, let us say that I decree that anyone who does not pay me a yearly tax will be throw in jail. As a king, I have the right to demand a tax and I have the right to punish those who do not follow my rules. However, what if I declare that the tax is one unicorn head per year? Unicorns do not exist, so would I be justified in sending people to prison for not paying an impossible debt? God has put a "tax" on salvation and that tax is belief. God has declared that belief in his Son will make us perfect, spotless, washed clean. We must simply accept the arrangement, and we shall avoid punishment. We could never pay the original price of sin on our own, but Christ has offered to foot the bill. However, we have to say yes first.
If human beings do not have the choice of freely accepting or rejecting God, God is not just for sending people to Hell, it is that simple. We know from God's character that he is Love, Justice, Mercy, and Holy. From this we know that God does not define these things, he is these things, and thus cannot act in opposition to them. If it is not just to punish someone for something they had no control over, God will not do it. I don't think it needs to much explaining to understand why it is unjust to knowingly demand the impossible. Punishing people for being born imperfect with no hope of changing themselves is more akin to Nazism than Christianity.
And so we find that the doctrine of Total Depravity, at least as put forward by Mr. Piper in his exposition, is seriously lacking in several key areas. It has no basis in the context of the verses it uses to proof text itself, it has no regard for the nuanced writing style of Paul and others, and it makes no sense from a purely philosophical evaluation of the justice of God. Extrapolating total depravity from the verses presented results in a jarring departure from the thought flow of books in their entirety. Reading the Bible as one book, one complete letter from God to man, we see that we are responsible for our actions, that no one is immune to temptation and failure, and that we have no hope of relationship with God, no hope of perfection, without accepting Christ's sacrifice. John 3:16 credits God's love of the "whole world" for his decision to send his son to die. In Ezekiel 18:32, God says that he does not desire in the death of the wicked, so "repent and live!". In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul explains that God desires all men be saved and come into relationship with him.
The entire Bible paints a picture of a God who loves his people and desires relationship with them and who grieves when they turn from him. The doctrine of total depravity destroys the aesthetic quality of the Biblical message by making us hostages of a capricious God's whimsy, not wayward children of a loving Father. It stands in repugnant contrast to the image of Christ's death as a gift to the entire human race. Total Depravity would render the Resurrection a farcical exercise in futility if no one could truly believe and be saved. If we are born dead in sin, unable to recognize our state and unable to even want to cry out to God, then every verse that commands us to repent, every story that exhorts us to turn to God, every encouragement to do good deeds, and every commission to bring people to God are nothing but hollow banalities with no impact on our lives at all. Our time on earth is simply God's pointless puppeteering and our deeds are simply the mindless machinations of tyrannical ruler. Perhaps this fatalism seems too dramatic to attach to so popular a doctrine, but what other conclusion can we reach when we find that we are born repulsive to God by his own design? If, as David states in Psalms 139, he has knit us together in our mother's womb, we must question the motives and goodness of a God who would knit such unsightly and detestable creatures as we, the supposedly totally depraved.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/17/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Cut to the chase.....
A "Reformed" view usually outlines and structures its inquiry to three or four things: Creation, Fall, Redemtion, and either "office' (now) or "Restoration" (then). Its GOOD!
BUT, Reformed theology follows a different outline: Sin, Salvation, Service. (See the Heidelberg Confessions, the Canons of Dort, etc.) THAT is the problem.
Ironically, the Canons of Dort, from which "TULIP" so badly is drawn (much to the real horor of real, cradle-born Calvinists), is ACTUALLY PASTORAL. And as such it is really quite good. ESPECIALLY its stern warnings against speculating on who is saved -- even one's salf. And it follows up with admonition not to doubt what one has expeirenced inwardly either; but to follow up on it by nurturing faith through good works!!! Sound pastoral stuff!!!!
But back to my point.
It seems to me to be the heart of the problem that by starting with Sin, and NOT CREATION (As Calvin actually was good at doing) you get this BADLY SKEWED theology at Dort those two generations of "Calvinists" after Calvin. I bet John Calvin would have hated "TULIP!"
For an antidote, see Orthodox Christianity. WE ARE CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE. WE ARE MORTALLY SICK. AND WE REQUIRE GRACE TO COME TO GOD. BUT WE ARE NOT WHAT TULIP SAYS. (Then, Dort doesn't say what others say it says either.)
REMEMBER: Creation, Fall, Redemption. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/17/2004 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Commentary (by Plantinga) on what Dort REALLY says:
quote:
If Article 7 offers a glorious description of election, then Article 15 is its opposite number. That article is as close as the Canons come to a definition of reprobation. The reprobate are those sinners whom God leaves, whom He permits to follow their own ways, on whom He does not bestow faith, whom He passes by. The upshot of Articles 6, 7, and 15 is that there is no balanced, symmetrical relation between election and reprobation. They are unequally yoked together. God causes some to believe. But He does not cause the others to disbelieve. He simply leaves them alone.
(THIS IS NOT WHAT I SEE THE ORTHODOX SAYING!)
quote:
Why do the Canons go so far as to say that God causes belief? We have to go back once again to the fall and its effects. We are hooked on sin and in a spiritual coma. By fallen nature we all resist God's invasion. In order to save, God must break down barriers, move past defenses, disarm rebels, and change hearts. He has to cause belief. Else we would continue to resist-and in that case there would be no hope.
(That sounded better -- the "sick" and "hooked" part. BUT I don't think that "causes" belief.)
One of those GOOD pastoral parts...
quote:
Article 12 affirms the Reformed belief that one's salvation is shown by its fruits (cf. Answer 86 of the Catechism). Note that among these fruits the Canons realistically list not righteousness, but "a hungering and thirsting after righteousness." Let a person be sorry for his sin; let him fear God, trust Christ, and yearn for righteousness. If he does these things, he need not doubt his election.
READ FOR YOURSELF. DON'T TRUST A NEO-CALVINIST. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 3/17/2004 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the post. Frist let me state that the largest problem, especially critiquing Piper's view of T.U.L.I.P. is to think that it is built off of the previous point. Piper will be the first to say that systematic theology has it's place, but each point SHOULD and DOES stand on it's own. We must not forsake true biblical teaching to remain systematic at all costs. Instead let Scripture speak, and if it seems to break the bounds of logic, so be it. For it is better to deprive the mind of all reason and forsake all logic, that the chain Biblical teaching of the Holy Writ not be broken. Huge point to remember at the outset of your post. If Scritpure can not back each point individually, then away with the point.
Your first scripture useage, I fail to see how that undermines the first point, "Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God". "The Jews were ready to appeal to the law of Moses, which they had and the Gentiles did not. The implication was not that in this connection God does show "partiality". The role of the law is a major theme in Romans. Here in his first discussion of it, Paul show that what pleases God is not knowledge of the law but OBEDIENCE to God's will revealed in it. Therefore, "ther is no paritality with God." Though the law was known to them, this DOES NOT and WILL NOT satisfy God, what does, is obedience. But the unregnerate don't submit themselves to God and nowhere are we told that they willingly can; but as you pointed out, we willing cannot, for that is all out debased, sinful, damned minds want to do. It is clear, Romans 3, citing a Psalm, clearly says, "NO ONE seeks God, NO NOT ONE." and Gen 6:5 tells us that the thoughts and inclinations of man were evil continually and Jermiah 17:9 that out hearts above all are wicked and decietful.
Claiming Total Depravity would not be an excuse not to follow God. i don't see why you assert this or how you come to this conclusion. For I don't truly believe the unregnerate can know they are totally depraved, for how can the dead man truly know he is dead, unless he has been made alive?
We once faced God, in the Garden. And we turned away. And we are all born into sin already having turned away from God. For once we were not a people, but know we are a people. Once we had forsaken God but now He has saved us. Before you say that Romans needs to be interpruted in order of how Paul writes it, is it not more important that Romans be interpretued in light of the rest of Scritpure first and foremost? The idea of this being poetry is not a valid opition. if that is the case lets do away with all literal translations of the majority of the old testament. do you take the curses brought upon man in Genesis 3 and 4 as literal? Cause that's Poetry.
Your point of Acts and Peter telling people to turn and repent does nothing to diminish the idea of Total Depravity. Even as Piper clarifies there is a difference between general call and saving call. A general call is given to all, in this way all men are held accountable. But further, Luther argues in the great book Bondage of the Will that God commands people to turn and repent to show them that they cannot without the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. To show them that they are in and of themselves depraved. that was a really quick answer and i'm willing to go further if you so desire. how would you deal with a problem text such as acts 13:48 where "all that were appointed unto salvation believed"?
The Romans arguement of everything not done in faith is sin, has been held by many and much smarter people than myself. Kierkegaard holds this and makes a great arguement for the despair of sin and that sin is in actuallity things not done in faith. But your argument against this intrigues me and i ask therefore what your definition of sin is. as far as Romans 7 the Christian can do good, but solely by the work of the Holy Spirit. and if a Christian who has been set free has dificulty following the law of God, how much harder for one who is a slave to sin? I don't know about the non-Christian, but often times, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. What of the unregenerate who has a dead spirit? what is willing then?
I think there is a clear distinction that needs to be drawn. Christians are no longer totally depraved. we have the ability to accept or reject God. I have no reason to believe that the verses in 3 are speaking about Christians as well. I more so have an inclination that Paul is speaking of humans left to themselves, as I sense David was speaking about in his psalm. The hyperbole question has me intrigued as to where you draw the line then? and if these "poetic" lines seem to be backed by other Scriptures, which all good Calvinists and even Piper maintain and show, then why can they not be interpruted literally?
Your Romans 8:6ff doesn't seem substantial at all. I see no reason why to agree with you. you may want to comment a bit more on this, use Greek, etc. These verses are weighty and a four sentence paragraph i don't think is enough to verify your claim. "Those who are controled by the sinful mind CANNOT please God". Christians can not be of the flesh, Galatians 5 speaks against this.
I think the Ephesians 2 passage to say again it isn't literal, is about as cheap of an argument as the great clinton argument that came about a few years ago. I have yet to understand why this shouldn't be taken literally. Why would Paul exagerate the horrible human life? why not make it at least a little appealing? I don't believe the Greek shows in any manner that it can be translated as "good as dead".
This is where i stop for now. I have to go to Bible Study now. I don't know if i'll be able to respond to the rest, but as a critiquing brother, I don't find the arguments substantial. I can think of better ways to go about bashing Total Depravity and you havent' seemed to hit on them yet. I don't think you can reply to anything Dr. Piper, John, has to say in paragraphs. The man has done his studying, the man knows his stuff and cannot merely be written off with a few sentences. that's why this discussion is good. I also encourage you, if you have time to pick up Freedom of the Will by Edwards and Bondage of the Will by Luther. Great books on totally depravity.
Blessings,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 3/18/2004 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
Here in his first discussion of it, Paul show that what pleases God is not knowledge of the law but OBEDIENCE to God's will revealed in it. Therefore, "ther is no paritality with God." Though the law was known to them, this DOES NOT and WILL NOT satisfy God, what does, is obedience. But the unregnerate don't submit themselves to God and nowhere are we told that they willingly can;
But Romans 2:14 clearly says that Gentiles who don't have the law sometimes do by nature the things required of it, because there is a "natural law" written on men's hearts. That's what I was getting at. There is a part of man that propels him towards good even if he is nowhere near God.
quote:
Claiming Total Depravity would not be an excuse not to follow God. i don't see why you assert this or how you come to this conclusion. For I don't truly believe the unregnerate can know they are totally depraved, for how can the dead man truly know he is dead, unless he has been made alive?
Seems to me that if I was standing before God on the Day of Judgement and he says "I never knew you" I could just say "Well, you created me depraved, what do you expect?". I think if I was a non-christian with knowledge of TD, I would claim depravity as my license to sin and to not even attempt to believe.
quote:
The idea of this being poetry is not a valid opition. if that is the case lets do away with all literal translations of the majority of the old testament. do you take the curses brought upon man in Genesis 3 and 4 as literal? Cause that's Poetry.
I don't think poetry and literary devices have the same cut-and-dry quality that verses like "Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved". There's more grey area when it comes to interpreting poetry and literary devices like hyperbole.
quote:
Your point of Acts and Peter telling people to turn and repent does nothing to diminish the idea of Total Depravity. Even as Piper clarifies there is a difference between general call and saving call. A general call is given to all, in this way all men are held accountable. But further, Luther argues in the great book Bondage of the Will that God commands people to turn and repent to show them that they cannot without the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. To show them that they are in and of themselves depraved.
Does that not seem a little cruel to you? Doesn't it seem like God is almost taunting? "Hey you! All you have to do is believe and be saved!" "But God, you created me evil, I can't believe!" "I know, life's funny like that!" It just seems really out of character for God to knit people together totally depraved.
quote:
The Romans arguement of everything not done in faith is sin, has been held by many and much smarter people than myself. Kierkegaard holds this and makes a great arguement for the despair of sin and that sin is in actuallity things not done in faith. But your argument against this intrigues me and i ask therefore what your definition of sin is.
My point there is that the "faith" it is talking about is not a general faith, like faith in christ. It seems to specifically speak of faith in christian liberty, and the idea that if you believe eating idol meat is wrong, then for you it is. I think Piper used faith too broadly in that context. For a short, simple definition of sin, i would say "Doing anything God doesn't like". I realize that's not very nuanced, but it works. God doesn't like when people violate their own conscience even if he doesn't care about the act itself.
quote:
as far as Romans 7 the Christian can do good, but solely by the work of the Holy Spirit. and if a Christian who has been set free has dificulty following the law of God, how much harder for one who is a slave to sin? I don't know about the non-Christian, but often times, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. What of the unregenerate who has a dead spirit? what is willing then?
Wouldn't that mean there are no objectively good acts? That would mean that all deeds are essentially morally neutral and that only the doer makes an act good or bad. Again I have to go back to Romans 2:14 which gives the impression that people who do not have the law are compelled by their conscience to do good. I wouldn't say human beings are "naturally good" but I would say that even us fallen people are tuned into a natural law of God.
quote:
I think there is a clear distinction that needs to be drawn. Christians are no longer totally depraved. we have the ability to accept or reject God. I have no reason to believe that the verses in 3 are speaking about Christians as well. I more so have an inclination that Paul is speaking of humans left to themselves, as I sense David was speaking about in his psalm. The hyperbole question has me intrigued as to where you draw the line then? and if these "poetic" lines seem to be backed by other Scriptures, which all good Calvinists and even Piper maintain and show, then why can they not be interpruted literally?
Well, the backing seems a little contrived to me. Imagine someone trying to back, with scripture, an explicitly literal interpretation of Jesus' "If your right eye offends you, gouge it out". It could probably be done, but it would stand in contrast to much of the rest of scripture and the flow of thoughts of the authors. To me, the doctrine of total depravity doesn't seem to fit the rest of the Bible message. More on that later...
quote:
Your Romans 8:6ff doesn't seem substantial at all. I see no reason why to agree with you. you may want to comment a bit more on this, use Greek, etc. These verses are weighty and a four sentence paragraph i don't think is enough to verify your claim.
Well, my NET translaton has the word "outlook" for the greek word "phronema" and footnotes it to say that it is more accurate to use it in a "worldview" sense. Thus, of course the sinful outlook would be in opposition to God. However, I don't think the Bible says that we are born completely immersed in a sinful outlook. Verse 8:5 says that those who live by the flesh have their outlook shaped by the flesh. Therefore, it seems that our actions will help shape our outlook.
quote:
I think the Ephesians 2 passage to say again it isn't literal, is about as cheap of an argument as the great clinton argument that came about a few years ago. I have yet to understand why this shouldn't be taken literally. Why would Paul exagerate the horrible human life? why not make it at least a little appealing? I don't believe the Greek shows in any manner that it can be translated as "good as dead".
Where I'm coming from here is that Paul says plenty of things that aren't literal in their most extreme sense. The Corinthians are not literal babies, nor did Paul give them milk. Believers are not literally incense. Our skin cells are not literally sin. However Paul uses these methods to paint a picture for his readers. When we sin, we're effectively dead. I just think that it's extrapolating more out of the text to say "we're so dead inside that we can perform no good action and that we cannot ever desire to do good or to seek God and we're completely at the mercy of his whim to save us". It just doesn't fit very well with the Bible message.
What I mean by that is, as you had said earlier, why not take into account the entire Bible as context first, rather than just the whole book? Or something to that effect.
Well, I think I am. The Bible starts with the creation of the world and man. Man sins and is evicted from paradise and is made mortal. Throughout the OT, God both woos and punishes his children, winning their hearts with his good works and disciplining them with justice from Heaven. Sins are atoned for through people willingly sacrificing livestock, birds, etc. God devises a better way and sends his son to die as a final sacrifice, once and for all. Now, we do not have to worry about keeping 600+ mitzvah, we have freedom in Christ and we don't have worry about legalism. We are told to go and tell everyone on earth the good news because God desires that all people be saved. We know that soon Christ will come back and judge the earth and that those of us who have accepted Christ will be admitted to Heaven to have perfect fellowship with our God.
It's a beautiful story. But it becomes very very sinister if we are born dead. Now much of the Bible is just an act. As you said, there is a difference between a general call and a saving call, so that means that God calls people without really meaning it. John 3:16? Lies. God didn't love the whole world, he loved his prechosen elect. 1 Tim 2:4? Lies. God only desires that some be saved. Paul telling us to live in such a way as to attract believers? Moot point, since no one seeks God. Missions? Meh, no seekers. God assuring us in Ezekiel 18 that each man is responsible for his own actions? Pretty hollow if we inherit damnation from Adam.
Why even have a Bible? The unregenerate won't read it or care about it, and the regenerate will do what it says inherently, and even if they don't it doesn't really have a meaningful impact anyway.
To me, Total Depravity takes away any impact that the Bible could have on humans and that humans can have on each other. And it makes God look like a big cosmic bully for knitting some people together simply to send them to Hell. Does God not love the people in Hell? Does he wish they weren't there? If TD is true, then God obviously thought it better to create people for eternal torture rather than not create them at all! How can that possibly fit in with the Biblical story?
quote:
but as a critiquing brother, I don't find the arguments substantial. I can think of better ways to go about bashing Total Depravity and you havent' seemed to hit on them yet.
Well, my intent was not to bash. More to critique. In fact, I submitted it for comments so that I could bring it above the level of a mere hit piece. :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 3/18/2004 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
how would you deal with a problem text such as acts 13:48 where "all that were appointed unto salvation believed"?
Doing a little research, I found out some interesting things. The Greek word is tetagmenoi, which is the middle-passive voice form of tasso. Middle-passive is a somwhat rare construction where the subject receives the action, so it can best be translated "many as set themselves to eternal life believed." Such contruction occurs rarely in the NT - the middle-passive also occurs in Romans 9:22 talking about vessels that prepared themselves for destruction and I Corinthians 16:15 about people who devoted themselves to service. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/19/2004 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Plantinga (Pres. of Calvin.edu) on one of the Canons of Dort
quote:
Historical Drama of Salvation (Articles 1-4)
The Canons of Dort begin not in eternity with God but in history with man. The Canons begin with the fall. Here we can see something very important. The first question in the whole debate about divine sovereignty and human freedom is the question of the human predicament. How far have we fallen? Are we still free to choose God? Partly free? Or quite enslaved to sin? Are we bright-eyed? Bedimmed? Or blind as moles?
On this the Canons take the sternest view. Chapter III-IV will assert a doctrine of "total depravity." But Chapter I, Article 1 already declares that "all men. . .lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death." Following such texts as Ephesians 2:1 and 5, the Canons assert that fallen humanity is spiritually blind, enslaved, and, in fact, quite dead.
But Article 2 goes on in the drama of salvation. In His fierce determination to recover His creation, God invades with His Son. After the events of Christ's life among us, God calls, equips, and sends out ambassadors with the "joyful tidings" of what Christ has done.
These messengers, says Article 3, call sinners to repentance and faith. Some do repent and believe the gospel. They are delivered from God's wrath and graced with eternal life. But others shun the good news. Article 4 says about them what the Bible says: "The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/21/2004 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg says
Your point of Acts and Peter telling people to turn and repent does nothing to diminish the idea of Total Depravity. Even as Piper clarifies there is a difference between general call and saving call. A general call is given to all, in this way all men are held accountable. But further, Luther argues in the great book Bondage of the Will that God commands people to turn and repent to show them that they cannot without the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. To show them that they are in and of themselves depraved.
John says
There can be no legitimate accountability to a “general call” or any other call for that matter if there is no genuine ability to respond. This is nonsensical and counterintuitive. What all men are called to do is to becon the effectual work of the Spirit in their lives and hence repent.
Piper does not “clarify” here. He “confuses.” Scripture never differentiates between a “general call” and “saving call.” Luther adds to the smoke and mirrors. This is yet another Calvinistic man made phylosophical construct to avoid the clear statement and implication of Scripture. When my dad “called” me and my brother as children to come and do something. There was no differentiation in what he was “calling” us to do. His “call” was intuitive and the heat on my butt was equally intuitive when I did not answer his call.
A call is a call is a call. Tell me in Scripture where this so called general vs. specific call is stated. Remember, the Word of God is our “food” as Jesus said, and it does not require a degree in Theology to digest. Scripture means what it says. A call is a call. So add “call” to the list of terms that Calvinism redefines in order to justify its phylosophical system. First we are told “world” does not really mean world. “All men” does not really mean “all men.” And now “call” doesn’t really mean “call.” That is my problem with this system…Calvinism requires a course in “Contorted Linguistics” in order to interpret the Scripture. I’ll say it again. Clinton must have been a Calvinist..”Well’ It dependends on what the meaning of IS is…”
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:52 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|