Hello Haas,
You wrote:
[Quoting me]:
My interest is in the whole counsel of God, and I attempt to understand the biblical teaching on many subjects not impacted by the Calvinist debate. Calvinism is one of the least important topics in my hierarchy;
The more I read your comments here the less I believe the above underlined statement. Have you changed your mind since you wrote that?
No, I have not changed my priorities. The reason I have addressed Calvinism here is because it is, at this time, the only subject getting much action at this forum. You may notice, I never post, except in response to others. Others are talking about Calvinism, right now, and therefore, that is the subject that I am responding to.
If I say that Calvinism is a topic of relatively small interest to me, I mean that it is of little concern to me whether a man is a Calvinist or not. I haven't the slightest motivation to convert him from his views. This is a fact that has never changed with me.
That does not mean that I have no concern about scripture-twisting done right before my eyes—regardless what the subject matter may be. My interest is in upholding the truth, whatever the scriptures may teach that to be. When I see a man making a scriptural error before my eyes (especially on a topic that seems to be of great importance to him), I am just naive enough to think he might wish to be corrected, so that he can understand the topic better, and so that he may embarrass himself less in the future, by avoiding the continued use of unsound arguments.
If I tell him what I understand the scriptures to teach, and he prefers not to be convinced—so long as he lives a life pleasing to God—he will receive no further trouble from me. I am here to help. I am not overly concerned about whether my help is received or appreciated. My default assumption is that Christians want to have the truth, and would wish to be corrected where they are wrong. If this charitable judgment proves wrong in the case of certain individuals, while it does surprise me a bit, it does not ruin my day.
You also wrote:
[Quoting me]:
The reason I challenged any Calvinist to post scriptures that support their view of total depravity is because I already have looked at all the passages Calvinist writers and debaters have used—and I have also done something they apparently have not bothered to do—I have looked at their contexts as well.
Wow! You and I both know that there are men today that have spent as much time (or more) as you have studying the word verse by verse in its context.
The inclusion of the word "apparently" was deliberate (I always try to choose my words deliberately, so that I won't be misunderstood). I included this word for the simple reason that, while I cannot know what a man's private study practices have been, I can only speak of what is apparent to me. And what is apparent is that, if certain men have studied longer and harder than I have (I assume some of these fellows have done so), they do not appear to have done so with an adequate consideration of context.
If this suggestion seems strange or unlikely to you, I must assume you have not personally known as many biblical scholars, pastors and teachers as I have known, or perhaps have not read their books. Anyone who reads a man's argument with a critical eye can soon see whether his objectivity is curtailed by prior doctrinal commitments, which blind him to important elements in the context of a passage. In general, this is a greater problem among theologically-trained, professional religionists—for reasons that should be obvious.
In case it is not obvious, I will spell it out:
1) Men who are theologically trained have, by definition, been trained by theologians of one camp or another. This very seldom results in balanced consideration of opposing viewpoints. A man tends to be predisposed by his training to see whatever he has been taught to see. He may overcome this default bias, but only with difficulty—something requiring strong motivation.
2) The motivation to challenge one's views acquired in theological schools is greatly diminished if the man, thus trained, takes a salaried post in a denomination or school that wants him to loyally teach what he has been taught. I have known pastors honest enough to say that they don't want to find out if their denominational views are wrong, because it would cost them their jobs.
3) A trained and paid professional purveyor of religion will almost never have any interest in challenging or changing his views. He is even less likely to have any objectivity left in him if he happens to have written widely-read books espousing his views. It's hard for a man to think about changing his mind, after this point. That is precisely why I resisted the temptation to reveal my own views in my book on Revelation. I knew that once my views were published, it would always, thereafter, be my carnal tendency to defend what I have gone on record as believing, rather than to continue growing (and possibly changing) in my knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.
Whenever I hear James White, or John Piper, or John McArthur, or J.I. Packer, or Matt Slick, or Gene Cook, or Douglas Wilson, or R.C. Sproul (several of whom I have publicly debated) defending Calvinism against some of the clearest scriptures debunking it, it is not hard to recognize when they are choosing to fall back on stock (but weak) defenses, rather than really considering afresh the merits of the contrary view. Often, there appears to be an actual fear of objectively considering such objections.
Not knowing their hearts (and bearing no personal malice toward them), I cannot help but assume that a fear of losing either their livelihoods or their followings may play a role in their lapse of objective scholarship in such cases—or, alternatively, that they have never learned to be clear thinkers, but, rather, faithful repeaters of the party line. One thing that makes this clear is that they apparently do not even understand the arguments of the other side (I know they say the same thing about us). They may have heard many of these arguments, but many of them have memorized stock responses to what they mistakenly think their opponents are saying. I am often embarrassed for them when they repeat their lines, apparently without original thought on their own parts.
They may deny that their training, their livelihoods or their reputations have any impact on their objectivity, but, on their own principles, their self-assessment cannot be relied upon, since "the heart is deceitful above all things...who can know it?"
The question is not how much study a man has done. The Pharisees searched the scriptures (John 5:39), but their prejudices prevented them from seeing the very obvious truth before their noses. Some Jehovah's Witnesses may have studied the Bible more than I have. The scholars of the "Jesus Seminar" may have logged more scholarly hours than have any of us in the study of the Gospels. So what? It is not the quantity, but the quality of study that yields the truth of the scriptures—and two indispensable elements of quality in biblical research are objectivity and a teachable spirit..
The truth does not always present itself to the "wise and the prudent," unless they are also "babes" (Matt.11:25). "The meek will He guide in judgment; the meek will He teach His way" (Ps.25:9).
I am not making a judgment of these men's sincerity, only their objectivity. No one but God can judge the former; but every listener or reader is obliged to assess the latter.
Is Open Theism Heresy?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Haas wrote
I've actually quoted this verse to non-Christians in order to point out the sinfulness in all of us. At this point, I think I was mistaken.
I should have been looking to other verses instead. 
Blessings
Steve respondedHere is a verse we could discuss:
Isaiah 64:6
6 We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
1.6 We have all become like one who is unclean, (fallen sinful nature)
2.and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. (“moral” deeds done apart from the righteousness of Christ have no value before God).
3.We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (the wages of sin is death)
Hi Haas, I thought Steve did a pretty good job explaining why he didn't think this verse supported the total depravity of all men. Do you think so as well? As someone who is trying to understand the Calvinist and Non-Calvinist position (I have no allegiance either way) I'd like to hear your thoughts.Like every other passage that people quote about total depravity, Isaiah is talking about the state of specific people—in his case, the corrupt Jews of his generation, and also (by extension, according to Jesus) the Jews of Jesus' generation.
Calvinists take these verses as if they have no context, and pretend that they are written about the state of all men since the fall.
I've actually quoted this verse to non-Christians in order to point out the sinfulness in all of us. At this point, I think I was mistaken.
I should have been looking to other verses instead. Blessings
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Avatar...My daughter and I standing on a glass floor. well over 1000 feet above ground at the CN Tower in Toronto...the tiny green dots beside my left foot are trees.
Steve,
Thanks for the reply. You have certainly taken the time to explain yourself. Again, ultimately, I believe that God is sovereign over His church and each persons understanding of the Word. May we both find incredible joy and rest in Christ today and for all eternity.
You wrote:
Some of his book titles are: Seeing and Savoring Christ, Desiring God, God is the Gospel, For your Joy, etc., etc.
I haven't read anything you have written that would lead me to believe you have read or heard much from Piper (not that you need to, but you have mentioned him).
Also,
Steve wrote:
Steve wrote:
Now consider what Paul rights to the Ephesians Christians:
Ephesians 2:1-10
2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Am I to conclude that you would teach that the Christians at Ephesus were by nature children of wrath, but not the rest of mankind? If not, what do you say it means to be "by nature children of wrath."?
Like Traveler and maybe Mark said, I think it is clear that people are religious and seek after gods, but does anyone seek after the God of Scripture? Humans (myself included) are like a constant idol making factory. Many people I meet are deeply offended by the God of the Bible. Surely you have spent some time at secular colleges recently. When I think of the depravity of man, I look to Scripture, my own heart prior to being drawn by God, and the world around me.
Did you hear from the Way of the Master crew after the shootings at Virginia Tech? They went around to college campuses and the students they talked to refused to say what the shooter did was evil. Would we be doing these folks any good by saying, "well don't worry about it, God loves you."? Or would be be better served to preach:
Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
and
Luke 13:1-4
13:1 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?
and
Acts 17:30-31
30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
and
Matthew 11:25-30
25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Maybe you could point me to a message or two you have given on the sinful nature of man. What I have read from you on the forums seems to be a glossing over of the sinfulness of man.
Resting in Christ,
Haas
Thanks for the reply. You have certainly taken the time to explain yourself. Again, ultimately, I believe that God is sovereign over His church and each persons understanding of the Word. May we both find incredible joy and rest in Christ today and for all eternity.
You wrote:
I guess I am most curious about what you have heard or read from Piper? He is not a man to hold back. His passion is Christ. Certainly he writes and speaks about the doctrines of grace, but just as often he speaks on "A passion for the supremacy of God for the Joy of all peoples".Whenever I hear James White, or John Piper, or John McArthur, or J.I. Packer, or Matt Slick, or Gene Cook, or Douglas Wilson, or R.C. Sproul (many of hwhom I have publicly debated)
Some of his book titles are: Seeing and Savoring Christ, Desiring God, God is the Gospel, For your Joy, etc., etc.
I haven't read anything you have written that would lead me to believe you have read or heard much from Piper (not that you need to, but you have mentioned him).
Also,
Steve wrote:
So here we have Jews.Like every other passage that people quote about total depravity, Isaiah is talking about the state of specific people—in his case, the corrupt Jews of his generation, and also (by extension, according to Jesus) the Jews of Jesus' generation.
Steve wrote:
And here we have Jews and Gentiles, but only in Rome (according to my understanding of your arguement).It never occurs to most commentators that Paul actually had something to say to the church in Rome, concerning a local problem in the attitudes between the Jews and the Gentile Christians.
Now consider what Paul rights to the Ephesians Christians:
Ephesians 2:1-10
2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Am I to conclude that you would teach that the Christians at Ephesus were by nature children of wrath, but not the rest of mankind? If not, what do you say it means to be "by nature children of wrath."?
Like Traveler and maybe Mark said, I think it is clear that people are religious and seek after gods, but does anyone seek after the God of Scripture? Humans (myself included) are like a constant idol making factory. Many people I meet are deeply offended by the God of the Bible. Surely you have spent some time at secular colleges recently. When I think of the depravity of man, I look to Scripture, my own heart prior to being drawn by God, and the world around me.
Did you hear from the Way of the Master crew after the shootings at Virginia Tech? They went around to college campuses and the students they talked to refused to say what the shooter did was evil. Would we be doing these folks any good by saying, "well don't worry about it, God loves you."? Or would be be better served to preach:
Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
and
Luke 13:1-4
13:1 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?
and
Acts 17:30-31
30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
and
Matthew 11:25-30
25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Maybe you could point me to a message or two you have given on the sinful nature of man. What I have read from you on the forums seems to be a glossing over of the sinfulness of man.
Resting in Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hey anothersteve:
you wrote:
Ephesians 2:1-10 and many others already posted in this thread.
BTW- I share Scripture to my family, kids where I work, etc. on a regular basis. When I share these things, I try to show (from the Bible) why the good news is so good. It is in light of the bad news being so bad. What good does saying "God loves you" without a context for that love. God is love is wonderful news in light of I John 4:10, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 3:23-25, Romans 5:6-8, etc.
May God lavish you with His grace,
Haas
you wrote:
Personally I would still be comfortable quoting that verse to unbelievers, but there are many more than that to share.I've actually quoted this verse to non-Christians in order to point out the sinfulness in all of us. At this point, I think I was mistaken. I should have been looking to other verses instead.
Ephesians 2:1-10 and many others already posted in this thread.
BTW- I share Scripture to my family, kids where I work, etc. on a regular basis. When I share these things, I try to show (from the Bible) why the good news is so good. It is in light of the bad news being so bad. What good does saying "God loves you" without a context for that love. God is love is wonderful news in light of I John 4:10, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 3:23-25, Romans 5:6-8, etc.
May God lavish you with His grace,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Haas wrote
PS....In regards to John Piper. From what I've heard from him and read ("Future Grace" and "Seeing and Savouring Jesus Christ") he certainly seems to have a passion for Christ. Setting doctrinal issues aside, you are correct, that's what really matters. Jesus didn't say they'd know we were his disciples because we all agreed with one another. I think love and unity in spite of disagreements is a great testimony! We are brothers first and theologians second.
Peace
I would tend to agree with you. There is an element of truth that applies. It's a good illustration on how apparent righteous deeds may not be as it appears. I think my error was applying this verse universally to everyone, without exception, when this is apparently talking (in context) to a specific people and situation.Personally I would still be comfortable quoting that verse to unbelievers
PS....In regards to John Piper. From what I've heard from him and read ("Future Grace" and "Seeing and Savouring Jesus Christ") he certainly seems to have a passion for Christ. Setting doctrinal issues aside, you are correct, that's what really matters. Jesus didn't say they'd know we were his disciples because we all agreed with one another.
I think love and unity in spite of disagreements is a great testimony! We are brothers first and theologians second.Peace
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Avatar...My daughter and I standing on a glass floor. well over 1000 feet above ground at the CN Tower in Toronto...the tiny green dots beside my left foot are trees.
anothersteve,
James 4:13-15
13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”
If you are so inclined, join me in prayer to the Lord of the Harvest.
Matthew 9:35-38
35 And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
May grace fall like gentle rain in the desert,
Haas
Cool brother, I am glad Piper has encouraged you.PS....In regards to John Piper. From what I've heard from him and read ("Future Grace" and "Seeing and Savouring Jesus Christ") he certainly seems to have a passion for Christ. Setting doctrinal issues aside, you are correct, that's what really matters. Jesus didn't say they'd know we were his disciples because we all agreed with one another. I think love and unity in spite of disagreements is a great testimony! We are brothers first and theologians second.
Amen, but I'm nowhere near a theologian. I would like to go to Phoenix Seminary at some point. That is in God's hands.I think love and unity in spite of disagreements is a great testimony! We are brothers first and theologians second.
James 4:13-15
13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”
If you are so inclined, join me in prayer to the Lord of the Harvest.
Matthew 9:35-38
35 And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
May grace fall like gentle rain in the desert,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Brother Haas,
You wrote:
"I haven't read anything you have written that would lead me to believe you have read or heard much from Piper (not that you need to, but you have mentioned him). "
I have not read Piper that much. He's popular now. I do not make it a priority to keep up with the popular teachers. Having too much to read already, and having too little time as it is, I look for substance in writers who have something to teach me. I listened to a set of his sermons about Romans 9 (I think there were ten in the set). Nothing new there. I also wrote, and posted, a critique of his chapter about the "two wills" in God. A few years ago, I began reading "Desiring God," but was put-off by the unsupported Calvinistic assertions at the beginning, and went looking for something more responsible to read.
I'm sure Piper is a great Christian man, with a true passion for Jesus. I like that, but I can find men like that (even Calvinists) who do not have an agenda to promote Calvinism. Friends of mine attended one of the missions conferences at Piper's church, and, at the beginning, a man on the platform said, "If you are not yet a Calvinist, you will be when this conference is over." Sounds agenda-driven to me. Tozer had as much passion, but not as much of a theological agenda.
I do not claim to have read lots of Calvinist authors--no more than two dozen, probably. That is enough for me. They all say the same things. They seldom think up any better arguments, or show much original thinking. They recycle bad arguments. I have better things to do with my time.
You wrote:
"Ephesians 2:1-10
2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind...
Am I to conclude that you would teach that the Christians at Ephesus were by nature children of wrath, but not the rest of mankind?"
Why would you conclude such a thing as that, when Paul clearly declares "like the rest of mankind" (you are using a particularly "dynamic" translation, but it probably gets the point right, in this case)? Of course, all unsaved men are "children of wrath," at least once they have reached an age of accountability (Isa.7:16/ 1 Kings 14:12-13/Mark 10:14).
All men are sinners, and have thus incurred God's wrath. In fact, even all Christians are sinners, but they are no longer under wrath. Sinning is wrong, and God will judge those who practice it, but what has this to tell us about the inability of men to desire the mercy of God? Nothing that I can see.
Paul's adult converts, prior to becoming Christians, had been rank pagans, practicing the normal sins of the heathen. Paul reminds them of that, as a backdrop to the magnitude of God's mercy which they received. However, Paul does not tell us what Calvinists tell us about the birth-condition of all men. He says that men are "by nature" (presumably from birth) "children of wrath." This phrase "children of wrath" seems to mean "people subject to the wrath of God," rather than the more literal meaning that "wrath" is the name of one of our parents, or that our parents were angry at the time of our conception.
So far as I can draw from Paul, and the rest of scripture, this "wrath" is God's response to man's sinning. All have sinned (and have a natural propensity to do so), and thereby have become "children of wrath" and "dead in tresspasses and sins" (to use another of Paul's metaphors). Paul does not tell us here whether they were "dead" from birth--only that they were in that condition when the gospel came to them as adults. He says that the situation with them was not different from that of "the rest" (what your translation renders "the rest of mankind"--which may or may not be what Paul meant by the less universal "the rest").
Elsewhere, he specifically says that, in his own case, he did not become "dead" until he was old enough to learn God's laws. Prior to that, he had been "alive" (Rom.7:9-11). "Dead" of course, in this sense, describes a condition something like being "alienated" or "condemned" (not, primarily, a mental or spiritual state, but a legal status). Jesus Himself indicated that men are not "condemned" until they reject the light that comes to them (John 3:19). In our American evangelical environment, shot-through, as it is, with Calvinistic presuppositions, these statements of Jesus and Paul sound heretical. I would be afraid to voice these sentiments myself, were it not for the credibility of these two witnesses.
Another great proof-text for total depravity, taken from later in Ephesians, describes the Gentiles as walking "in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart, who being past feeling, have given themselves over to licentiousness to work all uncleanness and greediness" (Eph.4:17-19).
This is a pretty good description of the state of the Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world, and apparently of the Ephesian worshipers of their patron goddess Artemis (Diana). Of course, if you meet some people today who fit this description, you will come away from the encounter with a little bit of empathy for what the Ephesian Christians faced in their culture.
However, there are two important observations to make about these verses:
1) This is not a description of the original condition of the Gentiles thus described, but a condition they arrived at. They became this way as a result of "hardening their hearts" (something people are warned not to do, in Heb.4:7) until they were "past feeling." This is a very advanced stage of degeneracy. It resembles the final condition of those described in Romans 1, after they had been given over to their own lusts (not an original condition in that passage either--cf. Rom.1:21-22).
2) Not all unbelievers fit this description. All people sin, but not all "have given themselves over to licentiousness to work all uncleanness and greediness"--though there are plenty who have. If you have only met such unbelievers as these first-century pagans, then you might not know that there are unbelievers who actually restrain themselves from much "licentiousness" and, rather than being "given...to greediness," actually have generous and philanthropic natures.
Your theology requires you to judge all of these people as shams and hypocrites, since, deep in their hearts, they are "standing on the parapet of hell screaming their eternal hatred for God" (J. White). Since the Bible does not warrant such uncharitable judgments about people we do not even know (in fact, appears to forbid them--James 3:9), I prefer to believe that these people may not all secretly be savages, ready at the first opportunity to kill every Christian, burn every Bible, and return to nudity, cannibalism and head-hunting.
Since Calvinist apologists seem to have no taste (or capacity?) for nuanced thought, I must state what should be obvious, and that is that I am not giving the civilized sinner a pass that makes him exempt from wrath for his various sins. I am merely pointing out that the passages often used to broad-brush the human race were not written as descriptions of the whole human race. They were written as descriptions of actual individuals and groups of people whom the writers had in mind. That there are still people who fit these descriptions no one would wish to deny. However, Calvinists imagine that all sinners are equally benighted, hard-hearted and abandoned to unrestrained hatred of God--when, in fact, no passage in scripture declares such a thing.
I sometimes am forced wonder, when confronted with the Calvinists' adamant insistence that all men are totally evil, whether they are revealing more about themselves and what they see in their own hearts than what can be observed in the real world, or in scripture. Freud thought every man wants to murder his father and have sex with his mother. I gather that the doctor, in this wild assertion, is revealing more about himself than about anyone I know.
You wrote:
"Many people I meet are deeply offended by the God of the Bible. Surely you have spent some time at secular colleges recently. When I think of the depravity of man, I look to Scripture, my own heart prior to being drawn by God, and the world around me."
Same here. However, my experience seems to be broader, not narrower, than yours, because I have also known unbelievers who were meek, caring, and even somewhat reverent. If you know no such people, you must hang out in the bad districts more than I do. You should get to know more people.
No matter how many people you may get to know, however, it is dangerous business to extrapolate from one's own, limited, anecdotal experience to the formation of universal doctrines about all humanity, of which no man has met more than a tiny fraction. If the Bible instructed you to take this approach, that would be one thing. Of course, what we are seeking to examine is whether the Bible does so--and where?
You wrote:
"Did you hear from the Way of the Master crew after the shootings at Virginia Tech? They went around to college campuses and the students they talked to refused to say what the shooter did was evil. Would we be doing these folks any good by saying, 'well don't worry about it, God loves you.'?"
I didn't hear the show, but it doesn't surprise me. It is what my experience would incline me to expect from the moral imbeciles that our universities (and media, and homes) are manufacturing. Our culture is definitely drifting more and more toward total stupidity. Is it your opinion that college students a generation or two ago would have responded similarly when interviewed? If not, then what does this anecdote tell us about a universal doctrine of human depravity? Is it not, like the biblical examples you give, just another instance of extrapolating, without warrant, from a particular case to a universal principle?
As far as your question about our telling these people, "well don't worry about it, God loves you"...frankly, that seems like a very silly thing to say to such people. Do you know anyone who suggests doing so?
You wrote:
"Maybe you could point me to a message or two you have given on the sinful nature of man. What I have read from you on the forums seems to be a glossing over of the sinfulness of man."
Well, I'm not sure what to recommend. Since most of my lectures (like most of the New Testament epistles) are delivered to Christians about Christian living, good opportunities to bad-mouth the unbelievers who aren't there in the classroom do not often come-up.
I probably talk about the sinfulness of mankind about as often as the New Testament does, since I often teach verse-by-verse through the books. I try to talk about what's in the passages. The sinfulness of the human race does not appear to be the primary concern of any book of the Bible, and it is not the primary concern in most of my teaching. I would prefer, in my teaching, to define and speak against sinning, rather than sinfulness. Upon hearing what the Bible defines as sinning, each of my listeners can draw his own conclusions about his own degree of "sinfulness."
Perhaps my lectures on Repentance, from the "Foundations" series, might present my views on it. I am not sure, since I seldom have occasion to listen to my own lectures.
You wrote:
"I haven't read anything you have written that would lead me to believe you have read or heard much from Piper (not that you need to, but you have mentioned him). "
I have not read Piper that much. He's popular now. I do not make it a priority to keep up with the popular teachers. Having too much to read already, and having too little time as it is, I look for substance in writers who have something to teach me. I listened to a set of his sermons about Romans 9 (I think there were ten in the set). Nothing new there. I also wrote, and posted, a critique of his chapter about the "two wills" in God. A few years ago, I began reading "Desiring God," but was put-off by the unsupported Calvinistic assertions at the beginning, and went looking for something more responsible to read.
I'm sure Piper is a great Christian man, with a true passion for Jesus. I like that, but I can find men like that (even Calvinists) who do not have an agenda to promote Calvinism. Friends of mine attended one of the missions conferences at Piper's church, and, at the beginning, a man on the platform said, "If you are not yet a Calvinist, you will be when this conference is over." Sounds agenda-driven to me. Tozer had as much passion, but not as much of a theological agenda.
I do not claim to have read lots of Calvinist authors--no more than two dozen, probably. That is enough for me. They all say the same things. They seldom think up any better arguments, or show much original thinking. They recycle bad arguments. I have better things to do with my time.
You wrote:
"Ephesians 2:1-10
2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind...
Am I to conclude that you would teach that the Christians at Ephesus were by nature children of wrath, but not the rest of mankind?"
Why would you conclude such a thing as that, when Paul clearly declares "like the rest of mankind" (you are using a particularly "dynamic" translation, but it probably gets the point right, in this case)? Of course, all unsaved men are "children of wrath," at least once they have reached an age of accountability (Isa.7:16/ 1 Kings 14:12-13/Mark 10:14).
All men are sinners, and have thus incurred God's wrath. In fact, even all Christians are sinners, but they are no longer under wrath. Sinning is wrong, and God will judge those who practice it, but what has this to tell us about the inability of men to desire the mercy of God? Nothing that I can see.
Paul's adult converts, prior to becoming Christians, had been rank pagans, practicing the normal sins of the heathen. Paul reminds them of that, as a backdrop to the magnitude of God's mercy which they received. However, Paul does not tell us what Calvinists tell us about the birth-condition of all men. He says that men are "by nature" (presumably from birth) "children of wrath." This phrase "children of wrath" seems to mean "people subject to the wrath of God," rather than the more literal meaning that "wrath" is the name of one of our parents, or that our parents were angry at the time of our conception.
So far as I can draw from Paul, and the rest of scripture, this "wrath" is God's response to man's sinning. All have sinned (and have a natural propensity to do so), and thereby have become "children of wrath" and "dead in tresspasses and sins" (to use another of Paul's metaphors). Paul does not tell us here whether they were "dead" from birth--only that they were in that condition when the gospel came to them as adults. He says that the situation with them was not different from that of "the rest" (what your translation renders "the rest of mankind"--which may or may not be what Paul meant by the less universal "the rest").
Elsewhere, he specifically says that, in his own case, he did not become "dead" until he was old enough to learn God's laws. Prior to that, he had been "alive" (Rom.7:9-11). "Dead" of course, in this sense, describes a condition something like being "alienated" or "condemned" (not, primarily, a mental or spiritual state, but a legal status). Jesus Himself indicated that men are not "condemned" until they reject the light that comes to them (John 3:19). In our American evangelical environment, shot-through, as it is, with Calvinistic presuppositions, these statements of Jesus and Paul sound heretical. I would be afraid to voice these sentiments myself, were it not for the credibility of these two witnesses.
Another great proof-text for total depravity, taken from later in Ephesians, describes the Gentiles as walking "in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart, who being past feeling, have given themselves over to licentiousness to work all uncleanness and greediness" (Eph.4:17-19).
This is a pretty good description of the state of the Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world, and apparently of the Ephesian worshipers of their patron goddess Artemis (Diana). Of course, if you meet some people today who fit this description, you will come away from the encounter with a little bit of empathy for what the Ephesian Christians faced in their culture.
However, there are two important observations to make about these verses:
1) This is not a description of the original condition of the Gentiles thus described, but a condition they arrived at. They became this way as a result of "hardening their hearts" (something people are warned not to do, in Heb.4:7) until they were "past feeling." This is a very advanced stage of degeneracy. It resembles the final condition of those described in Romans 1, after they had been given over to their own lusts (not an original condition in that passage either--cf. Rom.1:21-22).
2) Not all unbelievers fit this description. All people sin, but not all "have given themselves over to licentiousness to work all uncleanness and greediness"--though there are plenty who have. If you have only met such unbelievers as these first-century pagans, then you might not know that there are unbelievers who actually restrain themselves from much "licentiousness" and, rather than being "given...to greediness," actually have generous and philanthropic natures.
Your theology requires you to judge all of these people as shams and hypocrites, since, deep in their hearts, they are "standing on the parapet of hell screaming their eternal hatred for God" (J. White). Since the Bible does not warrant such uncharitable judgments about people we do not even know (in fact, appears to forbid them--James 3:9), I prefer to believe that these people may not all secretly be savages, ready at the first opportunity to kill every Christian, burn every Bible, and return to nudity, cannibalism and head-hunting.
Since Calvinist apologists seem to have no taste (or capacity?) for nuanced thought, I must state what should be obvious, and that is that I am not giving the civilized sinner a pass that makes him exempt from wrath for his various sins. I am merely pointing out that the passages often used to broad-brush the human race were not written as descriptions of the whole human race. They were written as descriptions of actual individuals and groups of people whom the writers had in mind. That there are still people who fit these descriptions no one would wish to deny. However, Calvinists imagine that all sinners are equally benighted, hard-hearted and abandoned to unrestrained hatred of God--when, in fact, no passage in scripture declares such a thing.
I sometimes am forced wonder, when confronted with the Calvinists' adamant insistence that all men are totally evil, whether they are revealing more about themselves and what they see in their own hearts than what can be observed in the real world, or in scripture. Freud thought every man wants to murder his father and have sex with his mother. I gather that the doctor, in this wild assertion, is revealing more about himself than about anyone I know.
You wrote:
"Many people I meet are deeply offended by the God of the Bible. Surely you have spent some time at secular colleges recently. When I think of the depravity of man, I look to Scripture, my own heart prior to being drawn by God, and the world around me."
Same here. However, my experience seems to be broader, not narrower, than yours, because I have also known unbelievers who were meek, caring, and even somewhat reverent. If you know no such people, you must hang out in the bad districts more than I do. You should get to know more people.
No matter how many people you may get to know, however, it is dangerous business to extrapolate from one's own, limited, anecdotal experience to the formation of universal doctrines about all humanity, of which no man has met more than a tiny fraction. If the Bible instructed you to take this approach, that would be one thing. Of course, what we are seeking to examine is whether the Bible does so--and where?
You wrote:
"Did you hear from the Way of the Master crew after the shootings at Virginia Tech? They went around to college campuses and the students they talked to refused to say what the shooter did was evil. Would we be doing these folks any good by saying, 'well don't worry about it, God loves you.'?"
I didn't hear the show, but it doesn't surprise me. It is what my experience would incline me to expect from the moral imbeciles that our universities (and media, and homes) are manufacturing. Our culture is definitely drifting more and more toward total stupidity. Is it your opinion that college students a generation or two ago would have responded similarly when interviewed? If not, then what does this anecdote tell us about a universal doctrine of human depravity? Is it not, like the biblical examples you give, just another instance of extrapolating, without warrant, from a particular case to a universal principle?
As far as your question about our telling these people, "well don't worry about it, God loves you"...frankly, that seems like a very silly thing to say to such people. Do you know anyone who suggests doing so?
You wrote:
"Maybe you could point me to a message or two you have given on the sinful nature of man. What I have read from you on the forums seems to be a glossing over of the sinfulness of man."
Well, I'm not sure what to recommend. Since most of my lectures (like most of the New Testament epistles) are delivered to Christians about Christian living, good opportunities to bad-mouth the unbelievers who aren't there in the classroom do not often come-up.
I probably talk about the sinfulness of mankind about as often as the New Testament does, since I often teach verse-by-verse through the books. I try to talk about what's in the passages. The sinfulness of the human race does not appear to be the primary concern of any book of the Bible, and it is not the primary concern in most of my teaching. I would prefer, in my teaching, to define and speak against sinning, rather than sinfulness. Upon hearing what the Bible defines as sinning, each of my listeners can draw his own conclusions about his own degree of "sinfulness."
Perhaps my lectures on Repentance, from the "Foundations" series, might present my views on it. I am not sure, since I seldom have occasion to listen to my own lectures.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:07 am, edited 4 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Incredible Steve. Your familiarity with Calvinist thought is so poor I do not really know what to say. I am actually dumb founded!
I was working on a response to Sean, who was defending you regarding your remarks about Calvinists denying the image of God in man, but after that last post of yours I decided not to bother, it is quite obvious you have not a clue about what Calvinism teaches about man and his abilities etc.
It is really sad to read your last post, the errors would take even me far too much time to respond to, and I have never ever said that before brother.
As I said in the other thread with my name in the title, I am sorry that I did not keep my word and leave here. Please forgive me for that, my zeal wanted me to stay due to some encouragement from others, but my spirit now wants me to depart in reasonable peace. Although I may still interact with your teachings elsewhere.
May God richly bless this place for the good of His people and His own great glory.
Mark
I was working on a response to Sean, who was defending you regarding your remarks about Calvinists denying the image of God in man, but after that last post of yours I decided not to bother, it is quite obvious you have not a clue about what Calvinism teaches about man and his abilities etc.
It is really sad to read your last post, the errors would take even me far too much time to respond to, and I have never ever said that before brother.
As I said in the other thread with my name in the title, I am sorry that I did not keep my word and leave here. Please forgive me for that, my zeal wanted me to stay due to some encouragement from others, but my spirit now wants me to depart in reasonable peace. Although I may still interact with your teachings elsewhere.
May God richly bless this place for the good of His people and His own great glory.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Adios, Amigo.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Incredible Steve. Your familiarity with Calvinist thought is so poor I do not really know what to say. I am actually dumb founded!
Mark,It is really sad to read your last post, the errors would take even me far too much time to respond to, and I have never ever said that before brother.
Although we have interacted with the scriptures on some occasions, it seems that for the last few months, this has been your main Calvinist apologetic (aside from ad hominem).
What is the value of such a statement, if the the things that one "is not familiar with" are never pointed out? It is simply a statement of unsubstantiated opinion, and is therefore not beneficial for anyone, in my opinion.
God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7