Isnt it possible that Jesus taught with parables to draw the true seekers out? in other words, those who were seeking the Kingdom would "do more research." they would continue to listen; perhaps ask questions. and isnt is possible that later, the apostles evangelized by explaining the parables to the masses that previously went unexplained?
TK
Did Jesus believe in Total Depravity?
Re: Did Jesus believe in Total Depravity?
Derek, you ask an excellent question. It's one I haven't considered before. More importantly, it's a directly exegetical challenge, so it has the power to give me pause in a way that some other challenges don't. (Such as "command implies ability", or comments about robots and assumptions about what makes human choices "real" choices.) It's good food for thought. Thank you. I'll chew on it.
The key to this objection is that it's aimed at Total Depravity, not at reprobation. The passage is easily understandable with reprobation in mind. But it does raise the question, if we are unable to come to faith and repentance on our own, why would it matter how Jesus spoke? Couldn't he have spoken with perfect clarity, without risking his audience coming to repentance?
I'll have to think about how this passage interacts with John 6. The topics are pretty similar. And I'll be interested to read David's reply.
One more thing I'll be thinking about: Part of Jesus' teaching in John 6 is that no man can come to him unless the Father draws them. It's my understanding that Arminians basically agree with Calvinists on that point--that we can't come on our own, without some activity of the Spirit on our hearts. The point on which we disagree is whether that drawing grace is effectual/irresistible. So... How do you Arminians deal with this verse? Isn't your position vulnerable to the same challenge?
The key to this objection is that it's aimed at Total Depravity, not at reprobation. The passage is easily understandable with reprobation in mind. But it does raise the question, if we are unable to come to faith and repentance on our own, why would it matter how Jesus spoke? Couldn't he have spoken with perfect clarity, without risking his audience coming to repentance?
I'll have to think about how this passage interacts with John 6. The topics are pretty similar. And I'll be interested to read David's reply.
One more thing I'll be thinking about: Part of Jesus' teaching in John 6 is that no man can come to him unless the Father draws them. It's my understanding that Arminians basically agree with Calvinists on that point--that we can't come on our own, without some activity of the Spirit on our hearts. The point on which we disagree is whether that drawing grace is effectual/irresistible. So... How do you Arminians deal with this verse? Isn't your position vulnerable to the same challenge?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I believe that it is God's prerogative to reprobate people as a judgement. This passage shows that, as do others, like the account of the hardening of Pharoah in Exodus.
At this point, I do think that God's will can be resisted, not because of some powerlessness on His part, but because He chooses to let this be the case. Not to mention, the bible is repleat with examples of men not doing what He wants. I am not comfortable saying that this is merely His "revealed will" but secretly He doesn't want people to do His will (His "secret will").
I think that the non-Calvinist would say we do need to be called/drawn, but that God draws all men to Himself in some degree or another, and that the rejection of this call, is reason for judgement, which is the case in the passage in quesiton. I say "I think" because I'm not quite settled on this myself, although I see no problem with the argument. It's just that I am not quite settled on how I feel about John 6.
Sean summed it up nicely in his last post:
God bless,
Not if God draws all men.The point on which we disagree is whether that drawing grace is effectual/irresistible. So... How do you Arminians deal with this verse? Isn't your position vulnerable to the same challenge?
At this point, I do think that God's will can be resisted, not because of some powerlessness on His part, but because He chooses to let this be the case. Not to mention, the bible is repleat with examples of men not doing what He wants. I am not comfortable saying that this is merely His "revealed will" but secretly He doesn't want people to do His will (His "secret will").
I think that the non-Calvinist would say we do need to be called/drawn, but that God draws all men to Himself in some degree or another, and that the rejection of this call, is reason for judgement, which is the case in the passage in quesiton. I say "I think" because I'm not quite settled on this myself, although I see no problem with the argument. It's just that I am not quite settled on how I feel about John 6.
Sean summed it up nicely in his last post:
There could be some holes in my logic here. I am still learning!Because He came to His own and His own did not receive Him. They rejected the call of John the Baptist and ignored the miracles Jesus performed proving He was the Messiah. Non-Calvinist believe that repentance is a window of opportunity, don't take it lightly or it might pass you by. "If today you hear His voice, do not harden your heart". It does not mean that everyone must get equal opportunity.
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
I wasn't very clear when I said "Isn't your position vulnerable to the same challenge?" I understand your post, and it seems a fair description of the Arminian view of God's general calling grace, and his right to reprobate as judgment. I understand how this verse fits into your theology as far as that prerogative goes. My question had a different focus.
The root of this challenge to Total Depravity is the question, why does Jesus have to do anything active to stop his listeners from repenting? If T is true, they couldn't repent regardless of what Jesus says, because God has to take out their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh before they will repent and believe.
In short, T means that God has to do something active in our spirits before we will believe, so why couldn't God just...refrain from drawing them? Why would Jesus have to speak in parables to stop them from believing, if they can't believe on their own anyway?
And I'm turning that question back to Arminians. Don't you also believe that we don't believe on our own? Don't you also believe that God must draw before we can come? So doesn't this challenge to T also apply to your view? Why couldn't God just...refrain from drawing them?
Either I have an inadequate understanding of Arminian "drawing", or this entire objection applies to your theology as much as to mine.
The root of this challenge to Total Depravity is the question, why does Jesus have to do anything active to stop his listeners from repenting? If T is true, they couldn't repent regardless of what Jesus says, because God has to take out their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh before they will repent and believe.
In short, T means that God has to do something active in our spirits before we will believe, so why couldn't God just...refrain from drawing them? Why would Jesus have to speak in parables to stop them from believing, if they can't believe on their own anyway?
And I'm turning that question back to Arminians. Don't you also believe that we don't believe on our own? Don't you also believe that God must draw before we can come? So doesn't this challenge to T also apply to your view? Why couldn't God just...refrain from drawing them?
Either I have an inadequate understanding of Arminian "drawing", or this entire objection applies to your theology as much as to mine.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I see. Good question! I'll give it a shot.
I do however, believe that no one comes to the Father unless He draws them. I just don't think that Jn 6 is necessarily refering to regeneration.
I don't know what combination of the above factors necessarily constitutes this "drawing", because it appears that He can do some things, such as feeding the multitudes in Jn. 6, which serves as a great witness, and still, in answer to the unbelief of some of the people, say that "no one can come to Me unless the Father draws them". (that's why I'm a little on the fence on Jn 6).
So anyway, your question is still relevant. It could be phrased this way: "If God has to draw someone, (whatever your understanding of that is), why didn't Jesus just not draw them?
Well, I don't know. He could have chosen not to I suppose, but He must have. He had preached the Gospel, and performed mighty miracles in their presence etc. They rejected this, and were judged accordingly. He hid His teaching to effectively end any drawing that may have been taking place.
So to summarize, I think that it is necessary to see them as having been drawn in some sense, becuase they wouldn't have been able to repent and believe, which Jesus strongly implies was a possibility, had they not been. This fits fine with my theology, because I don't believe in irresistable grace. This option won't be available to a Calvinist, because, he has to believe that whoever God draws, will come.
Hope that clears up my position. I suppose this will lead into a discussion of John 6, since a lot of what I've said above rests on a different interpretation of that text, than the traditional Calvinist understanding.
God bless!
I do not think that regeneration preceedes faith, so I think that it is after believing that one gets his "heart of flesh".The root of this challenge to Total Depravity is the question, why does Jesus have to do anything active to stop his listeners from repenting? If T is true, they couldn't repent regardless of what Jesus says, because God has to take out their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh before they will repent and believe.
I do however, believe that no one comes to the Father unless He draws them. I just don't think that Jn 6 is necessarily refering to regeneration.
Again, I reject the "T" here. I don't think that we are regenerated, or given a new heart before we believe. I don't think that the "drawing" that God does is regeneration. It is rather, Him working on them, pressuring them through various circumstances such as convicting them of sin, the fulfilling of prophecy in sending John the Baptist, the miracles and preaching of Jesus etc, all of which had been done in Jerusalem (the setting for this passage). Of course the same applies today. Only the circumstances may be different.In short, T means that God has to do something active in our spirits before we will believe, so why couldn't God just...refrain from drawing them? Why would Jesus have to speak in parables to stop them from believing, if they can't believe on their own anyway?
I don't know what combination of the above factors necessarily constitutes this "drawing", because it appears that He can do some things, such as feeding the multitudes in Jn. 6, which serves as a great witness, and still, in answer to the unbelief of some of the people, say that "no one can come to Me unless the Father draws them". (that's why I'm a little on the fence on Jn 6).
I think that you may be accurately representing the thought of Arminius here, (though I'm not sure), which makes this one of those times where the label "Arminian" instead of "non-Calvinist" is inconveniant. I don't mind being called that, and use that label myself sometimes because it has become synonymous with "non-Calvinst" for the most part, but be prepared for little departures like this.Either I have an inadequate understanding of Arminian "drawing", or this entire objection applies to your theology as much as to mine.
So anyway, your question is still relevant. It could be phrased this way: "If God has to draw someone, (whatever your understanding of that is), why didn't Jesus just not draw them?
Well, I don't know. He could have chosen not to I suppose, but He must have. He had preached the Gospel, and performed mighty miracles in their presence etc. They rejected this, and were judged accordingly. He hid His teaching to effectively end any drawing that may have been taking place.
So to summarize, I think that it is necessary to see them as having been drawn in some sense, becuase they wouldn't have been able to repent and believe, which Jesus strongly implies was a possibility, had they not been. This fits fine with my theology, because I don't believe in irresistable grace. This option won't be available to a Calvinist, because, he has to believe that whoever God draws, will come.
Hope that clears up my position. I suppose this will lead into a discussion of John 6, since a lot of what I've said above rests on a different interpretation of that text, than the traditional Calvinist understanding.
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
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Ah yes, John chapter 6. The chapter that exposes Non Calvinist presuppositions and completely shatters Arminianism.
Are all men raised up on the last day? Joh 6:39,
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.
He says, it must be “given to a man to come” to Christ.
All that are given come.
All that come are raised on the last day.
The "all" cannot come unless it is granted by the Father.
No libertarian free will here.
SEE John 17:2 even as You have given Him authority over all flesh so that He should give eternal life to all You have given Him.
But, "all" are raised up on the last day in these texts.I think that the non-Calvinist would say we do need to be called/drawn, but that God draws all men to Himself in some degree or another,
Are all men raised up on the last day? Joh 6:39,
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.
He says, it must be “given to a man to come” to Christ.
All that are given come.
All that come are raised on the last day.
The "all" cannot come unless it is granted by the Father.
No libertarian free will here.
SEE John 17:2 even as You have given Him authority over all flesh so that He should give eternal life to all You have given Him.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A few thoughts before I go to work:
I envy open theists the simplicity of their name.
I can see why John 6 gives you pause on this... I've always assumed the "drawing" to involve something directly spiritual. It's good for me to question that assumption, but I have a hard time seeing pressure-through-circumstances as doing justice to what Jesus said about it. Can you really replace "draw" with that meaning, and have it work? "No one can come to Me unless the Father works on them through circumstances to put pressure on them." Really? Why not? If it's just a matter of being put in the right circumstances...As you point out, Jesus is answering the unbelief of some of those following him. In verses 64-65, it says that Jesus knew some didn't believe, and said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." But he actually hadn't said that...He'd said that no one could come unless the Father draws him, so apparently the "drawing" is the same as being granted by the Father to come. (And my e-Sword program says the word "granted" is just "given", as the KJV translates it.)
Basically, John 6 seems to describe some kind of inability on the part of man to come to Christ without God's help. As you put it, it's about being able to repent and believe. And pressure through circumstances and preaching doesn't seem to fit at all with the way Jesus was talking about it--that doesn't seem to grant an ability. It seems to need something more direct.
Plus, there's the issue you noticed that the people in John 6 had witnessed preaching and miracles.
(Hmm...For that matter, if you assume that the "drawing" in John 12:32 is talking about the same thing, does that work? "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will [pressure all men through a combination of preaching and circumstances and miraculous signs to come] to Myself.")
I dunno...
At first glance, your answer to my question may work, if we grant your understanding of what "draw" means. But if "draw" means any kind of direct enablement, then I think the challenge still backfires.
Just so you know, I'm not going to argue the "Regeneration before faith or faith before regeneration?" issue--I don't have a strong enough handle on the Biblical case regarding it. I might end up agreeing that "regeneration" happens after faith...But that wouldn't settle "U" and "I" for me. I try to think about it this way: What does the Bible teach about what happens before a person comes to faith & repentance, and what does the Bible teach about what happens after?Derek wrote:I see. Good question! I'll give it a shot.
I do not think that regeneration preceedes faith, so I think that it is after believing that one gets his "heart of flesh".The root of this challenge to Total Depravity is the question, why does Jesus have to do anything active to stop his listeners from repenting? If T is true, they couldn't repent regardless of what Jesus says, because God has to take out their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh before they will repent and believe.
I do however, believe that no one comes to the Father unless He draws them. I just don't think that Jn 6 is necessarily refering to regeneration.
I'm prepared for it. I realize there's going to be a variety of non-Calvinist views--I'm not hung up on Arminius. Really, I feel the same way about the term "Calvinist". (I make no promises that I'll agree with what Calvinists generally think, let alone what Calvin himself thought.) There isn't a very good set of terms in common use for the various sides--the terms have too much to do with people, and not enough to do with the issues involved.Derek wrote:I think that you may be accurately representing the thought of Arminius here, (though I'm not sure), which makes this one of those times where the label "Arminian" instead of "non-Calvinist" is inconveniant. I don't mind being called that, and use that label myself sometimes because it has become synonymous with "non-Calvinst" for the most part, but be prepared for little departures like this.Either I have an inadequate understanding of Arminian "drawing", or this entire objection applies to your theology as much as to mine.
I envy open theists the simplicity of their name.
OK, so if I understand correctly, the drawing you describe isn't a kind of direct action of the Spirit on our hearts. It has to do with the circumstances we encounter & react to, the preaching we hear, etc.--orchestrated to put pressure on us to believe.Derek wrote:Again, I reject the "T" here. I don't think that we are regenerated, or given a new heart before we believe. I don't think that the "drawing" that God does is regeneration. It is rather, Him working on them, pressuring them through various circumstances such as convicting them of sin, the fulfilling of prophecy in sending John the Baptist, the miracles and preaching of Jesus etc, all of which had been done in Jerusalem (the setting for this passage). Of course the same applies today. Only the circumstances may be different.
I don't know what combination of the above factors necessarily constitutes this "drawing", because it appears that He can do some things, such as feeding the multitudes in Jn. 6, which serves as a great witness, and still, in answer to the unbelief of some of the people, say that "no one can come to Me unless the Father draws them". (that's why I'm a little on the fence on Jn 6).
I can see why John 6 gives you pause on this... I've always assumed the "drawing" to involve something directly spiritual. It's good for me to question that assumption, but I have a hard time seeing pressure-through-circumstances as doing justice to what Jesus said about it. Can you really replace "draw" with that meaning, and have it work? "No one can come to Me unless the Father works on them through circumstances to put pressure on them." Really? Why not? If it's just a matter of being put in the right circumstances...As you point out, Jesus is answering the unbelief of some of those following him. In verses 64-65, it says that Jesus knew some didn't believe, and said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." But he actually hadn't said that...He'd said that no one could come unless the Father draws him, so apparently the "drawing" is the same as being granted by the Father to come. (And my e-Sword program says the word "granted" is just "given", as the KJV translates it.)
Basically, John 6 seems to describe some kind of inability on the part of man to come to Christ without God's help. As you put it, it's about being able to repent and believe. And pressure through circumstances and preaching doesn't seem to fit at all with the way Jesus was talking about it--that doesn't seem to grant an ability. It seems to need something more direct.
Plus, there's the issue you noticed that the people in John 6 had witnessed preaching and miracles.
(Hmm...For that matter, if you assume that the "drawing" in John 12:32 is talking about the same thing, does that work? "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will [pressure all men through a combination of preaching and circumstances and miraculous signs to come] to Myself.")
I dunno...
At first glance, your answer to my question may work, if we grant your understanding of what "draw" means. But if "draw" means any kind of direct enablement, then I think the challenge still backfires.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
What? Are you serious here?I might end up agreeing that "regeneration" happens after faith...But that wouldn't settle "U" and "I" for me.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
You are right. If "draw" means "direct enablement" it does backfire, as far as I can tell.At first glance, your answer to my question may work, if we grant your understanding of what "draw" means. But if "draw" means any kind of direct enablement, then I think the challenge still backfires.
You have raised some great points!
I must say brother, that I truely appreciate the irenic manner in which you debate this topic. It has been very edifying to discuss this with you!
Looking forward to more.
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
Uh...I may have phrased that poorly. When I said that wouldn't settle "U" and "U" for me, I meant it wouldn't refute them. I meant that I believe "U" and "I" because of the clarity of John 6 and Romans 9 and Roman 8:29-30, but I do not have a strong handle on the Biblical teaching regarding the term "regeneration" specifically. As far as I know at the moment, "regeneration" might include things that happen both before and after we put our faith in Christ, or perhaps the working of God's grace to bring us to faith should actually go by a different name. Or perhaps "regeneration" isn't a technical term at all, and can have multiple senses--like how "sanctification" can refer to the present on-going process of being made like Christ, or can also refer to a past action as in 1 Cor. 6:11. Perhaps we're being too rigid with the concepts of being made alive in Christ and being born again.tartanarmy wrote:What? Are you serious here?I might end up agreeing that "regeneration" happens after faith...But that wouldn't settle "U" and "I" for me.
Mark
I just don't know--but it's not a question that would resolve for me the broader topic of TULIP.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: