Post
by _David » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:47 pm
Steve,
This will have to be my last post indefinitely since my time off is drawing to a close. You, and anyone else for that matter, are welcome to respond, but I probably will not have the time to keep up a dialogue.
I believe you misunderstood my point on I Cor. 2. I do not believe that natural men are Christians; I believe that natural men are unsaved men who are still in their natural state. I believe that Paul is pointing out that by acting carnally, as if their minds have never been changed in the least by Christ, the Christians of Corinth are acting like natural men even though they are regenerate. Since unregenerate men cannot receive the things of the Spirit, but rather must have the gospel preached to them in the hope that God might open their hearts and enable them to receive it, Paul also presented the gospel to these men and started over at “square one”. Paul says their carnality is a roadblock to moving on to the deeper things of the Spirit, and that it would be as futile as talking about what you and I are debating to an unbeliever.
I do not believe Paul is defining the things of the Spirit as only those deeper matters of the Christian faith, but rather, all of the things of the faith since they are all spiritually discerned. His contrast is not between two depths of knowledge, but rather between two natures of knowledge, between those the natural man can grasp and those that only a spiritual man can grasp. All of the things of the Spirit can only be spiritually discerned, not just the deeper topics.
Does the fall affect our intellect? Is there any part of our person that is unmarred by the fall? It seems that the fall has noetic affects, and that because of the fall spiritual things cannot be naturally discerned. And since not all eventually come to know these things that are given by the Spirit, then they are not granted to all (such as Matthew 13:11-15, where Jesus said He deliberately spoke in parables to hide the kingdom from the crowd, but spoke plainly to his disciples. Jesus is the one who is doing this, not Satan, and not a Calvinist teacher).
The gospel is spiritually discerned, which is why Paul said that it was foolishness to those who are perishing. Rather than promoting elitism (does that comment mean I am also an elitist?), Calvinism promotes humility because the gospel was not the power of God unto my personal salvation because I was more spiritual, more receptive, more intelligent or more reasonable in my fallen mind than my unsaved neighbors intellect was. Rather, God “granted me repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” – 2 Tim. 2:25.
This, as an example, is how I would interpret Luke’s comment on Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16:14 when he adds “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” I am unsure why Luke would say this if it were true of all people everywhere. Nor do I think that this was something that God only did for Lydia but not others who were converted in history; I think there is something we can learn about others’ conversions besides Lydia’s from this verse. There is something that God did to Lydia and not others at this time that directly lead to her being enabled to “pay attention” in a way that she could not without God’s sovereign choice. There would be little point in mentioning this if God did this to everyone; if God does this to everyone, why doesn’t everyone respond as Lydia did? Why mention it at all if this work of God is a universal phenomenon? If God does this to all, but it does not ensure we will come to faith, then why did Luke write as if the proximate cause of Lydia's belief was God's opening her heart?
Steve, I disagree that there are no verses that teach that God must change our nature prior to coming to faith. All of the verses you list speak of us being saved through faith, as the means of our salvation, but none of them speak of us being saved on account of our faith. When Jesus said in Matthew 11:25-27 “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” it shows that spiritual understanding (faith) is a gift from God, and one that not all receive but only those to whom the Son chooses to grant it. I think this is also taught in Jesus’ mentioning that the work of the Spirit in bringing about the rebirth of the saved is like the wind, invisible and as He pleases - John 3:8. I remember these verses always being a difficulty before I became a Calvinist. Even under your teaching, I believe verses like these had to be softened in order to fit into the Arminian world that elitists such as I do not live in.
There are these verses and others (No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him – Jn 6:44) that talk about our inability and that speak of a change happening to our hearts and minds prior to coming to faith. My explanation may not satisfy you, but statements that there are no verses that teach that regeneration comes before faith or that God draws all with equal fervor are incorrect. You downplay verses like these, often because “there are only a handful” (there are more than a handful, but even if I granted you that, what does that mean – how many times does God need to say something before we take it seriously? I am not pulling out one line from Jesus’ ministry or an obscure verse from Revelations.). You spoke of my weak exegesis, but you should review your Calvinism tapes and pay particular attention to how many of your explanations of the Calvinist proof-texts were preceded by long pauses, deep breaths, and warnings that “these verses look Calvinistic, but….”. Some of these verses are challenging, on both sides of the argument; your last post just makes it seem so easy. You really have this all down.
Romans 9:2 is talking about Paul’s kinsmen, who are individuals who are going to hell if they do not believe in Jesus. The fact that corporately they belong to a nation that is no longer in a favored position with God is not what he is lamenting. God is not sending the entire nation to hell, he is sending all of those who do not believe in Jesus to hell, including those unbelieving Jews. This seems like the opposite outcome for “Israel” to what was predicted by the prophets. As Jewish Christians, how would Paul explain a glorious future predicted by God when his former people reject His Saviour? Ro. 9:2 is about individual people who corporately belong to Israel, but it is about their individual fates. Verse 2 is not about patriarchal heads either, though Paul uses these heads to explain the unbelief of individuals, such as Pharaoh and his kinsmen.
Steve, no doubt you have read books on the atonement. Yes, there are aspects of different theories on this that seem to find a home in various passages. However, please re-read what these theories say in particular. Those that deny a substitutionary death go on to deny that Jesus suffered in our place and that His death accomplished nothing objective for the sinner. It was a symbolic gesture of some sort. Therefore, redemption would be the sinner’s responsibility. Consider this quote from Charles Finney, a man who denied the subtitutionary atonement in favor of Grotius’ view of the atonement and argued that the change of a heart of stone to a heart of flesh is something the sinner must accomplish: “Sinners are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible. That uniformly represents the unregenerate as totally depraved (a voluntary condition, not a constitutional depravity) and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart”. Contrast this with the Biblical teaching in Ezekiel that it is God who transforms the heart of the sinner.
If we do not have a propitiation for our sin, then atonement becomes the sinner’s responsibility through some means. These various theories cannot be compounded on one another to make one “super-theory” that isn’t so draconian as demanding one or another, like those Calvinists. They cannot be combined because only one of the theories provides for a righteous Man to be offered in our place as our sacrifice, with His righteousness imputed to us, and our sin imputed to Him. The other theories were not designed to accentuate or add to this concept of a penal substitute, but rather to replace it.
Your mentioning of Jesus being offered “for” our offenses does not disprove my point. The verses I listed and the verse you mentioned both talk about Jesus’ death on the cross. However, the verses I mentioned use the word “for” in the context of dying as a substitute, and in context speak of Him dying in our place. This concept is not compatible with all theories on the atonement that you want to synthesize together. The verse you mentioned is talking about why Jesus had to die – he was delivered because we had offenses that needed to be atoned for. Trying to use this verse to make the definition of the word “for” be as open ended as your view of the atonement is not a satisfactory explanation to me. In fact, I think it is quite desperate. I use the definition of “in our place” when the context demands it. A sacrifice is offered on account of our sins and also in our place. The verses we quote talk about both of these aspects, but you and I are not debating the point of your verse, we are debating the point of mine. What did Christ’s death accomplish for sinners, not why He had to die.
You are fond of examples such as paying a pardon, swinging wide the door to the jail, and waiting for the inmates to step outside. This, as with many of your examples, is a disanalogy. Unlike your examples, Christ's death as a sacrifice required the imputation of our sins to Him at His death, or else His death was not a sacrificial, subsitutionary death. It could not be said in any way consistent with the sacrificial system He embodied that He died "for" us, as the Scripture declares. That is why I continue to press the Scriptures speaking of something having actually happened for sinners at the cross, as well as the many verses telling us that He died "for" us or in or place. Your analogy speaks of making an opportunity to be free; Jesus death made us free. Jailhouse pardons do not fit as an analogy. This view of the atonement is a good advice gospel (go ahead and walk on through or else He died in vain), not good news (whom the Son sets free is free indeed).
If Romans 1 does not speak of all men in their unregenerate state, then does that mean that God has not revealed Himself to all people through creation? Does it mean that there are unregenerate people who do not suppress the truth? I know your interpretation of these verses, and how you cue in on verse 32 and 2:1 and attempt to use these verses as an indication that this is a veiled reference to Israel. Much of what is said is true of Israel at different times in her history, but it is also true of all groups of unsaved people. It is true that not all unsaved people are homosexuals or worship literal idols, but that is a superficial reading of the passage. All of these sins come about because people suppress the truth; their worsening spiritual state may take different forms, but none is innocent because all suppress the truth. They do not suppress just the truth in the Old Testament law, but they suppress the truth as revealed in God’s creation, which is what leads to their spiritual decline. Not every nation had access to the Law, but every nation and every person can behold God’s glory in nature, and Paul says these are clearly seen. Though outwardly it may look like unbelievers mean well, Paul says with insight that their error is sinful and intentional and involves deliberate suppression of what they know is true.
I am only “absolutizing” this verse because it should be. What kind of exegesis is it to take verses that describe our depravity and then indulge in self-denial by saying “I was never that bad, that’s only the really bad people of the world”? What verses, Steve, do talk about you and me prior to our conversion? I need to know, because every verse I mention seems to be eschewed to that unfortunate segment of our society that is worse than you and I were from birth. This strikes me as a form of self-deception. Yes I believe people do want to know god, as you mentioned in responding to my previous post, but Paul’s point is that they do not want to know the True God, which is why they replace him with – you name it. This is all of us in our natural state, and it is why the wrath of God resides on those that do not believe.
Your response to my question about the Moabites and Ammonites does not help your point. I am not arguing that God was cutting these people groups off from the Jews so that they could not interact with the Jews. I am arguing that the Lord cut them off from Him, from his congregation, from worship at the tabernacle, from the place where God’s Word would be read. If faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, then what is the implication of God saying “I do not want these people around Me forever”? The implication, to me, is clear, and I do not think it is logical to assume that when God removes the means, He still has the end in mind. You mentioned in your response to my question that perhaps God knew something about these people that we don’t. That is an argument from silence. Remember that the Moabites and the Ammonites alive at the time that God uttered this command were not the only ones being cut off but also future generations not yet born. Their children would also be cut off and prior to having done good or bad, and so your conjecture that God cut these people off with no future opportunities to hear the Word and repent because he knew that they would not repent does not answer my question.
Steve, you misrepresent Calvinism by saying that we have a problem with God rewarding good behavior. You also, unfortunately, misrepresent the fallen state of man when you act as if he can do things that God considers good. Paul says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. If this is so, then how can they do good deeds? Outwardly they may conform with God’s law (an unbeliever may resist the temptation to steal and be honest), but that is not how the Bible defines a good work. We must not only do what God commands, but we must do it to glorify God. If a work could be called good without God in mind, it would imply that there is a standard of goodness outside of and separate from God, and that people can be morally good without any reference to God. Or else it would imply that people can be accidentally good by doing what God says without having knowledge of Him and yet having Him judge their works as righteous. The Bible teaches us that by nature, we do not do things for God’s glory because in our natural state, we do not even know God and we cannot know Him until we are re-born. Yes, I agree with Acts 10:35, God rewards us according to our works. Exactly Steve! He condemns unbelievers because their works are wicked. Even the works that may seem outwardly neutral or morally positive are not done for his glory. No Steve, do not take these statements and shoe-horn them into the camp of “those fallen men who are wicked as opposed to the fallen men that aren’t” or “a special group of wicked men”. Which fallen men are not wicked, and therefore how can a fallen person do something good in God’s eyes? How can a fallen person do something good and yet not please God? It must be that they do not do well by His standards. Even the mundane things, if not done with Him in mind, are displeasing to Him. Even living on His world and yet not acknowledging Him is wicked.
A person who is not saved but outwardly conforms to some of God’s laws invariably would have to rest on his “good works” if questioned about his salvation, if he even understands his need for that. This is pride and not a good work at all.
Calvinists do, however, have a problem with anyone who teaches that our salvation is brought about by a morally positive action on our part, because that theory is not commensurate with our fallen nature, with God’s definition of what truly constitutes a good work by a person, and with a salvation that is 100% to God’s credit. You cannot say that faith is morally neutral because we are commanded to believe Christ, and we are told that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar in I John. If this be true, then faith in Christ, though not a work, is still meritorious by its own right, and if supplied by the person somehow against their very nature, then they do have some credit for their salvation.
If it were just a matter of outward conformity, then Jesus would not have railed so hard on the Pharisees. But what was his most common complaint – that they outwardly looked righteous but on the inside they were like tombs. Their hypocrisy was in a gross form, but no fallen person has pure intentions or the glory of God in mind when they do anything that outwardly appears good. I do not know this because I am a proud man who arrogantly assumes knowledge of people’s hearts, I know this because of verses like Romans 1 and Romans 8, verses that I do not think you allow to carry their full import.
Steve, there are similarities between Greek philosophy and Calvinism. However, to say that they are the same shows that your sharp tongue does not necessarily provide an accurate review of Greek philosophy and Calvinist theology. I refer you to John Zizioulas’ work Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church as well as T.F. Torrance’s The Trinitarian Faith. By incorporating Greek forms of thought, Christian theology radically transformed them in making doctrines that were quite foreign to Hellinism. The fact that Calvinists are all Trinitarians is proof of this; if Greek philosophy had been imported in a pure form, I would be an Arian.
Steve, since this is my last post for a while, let me offer you a personal note. I really only intended to offer a book recommendation; I am not an angry Calvinist who can’t accept that people who love Christ disagree with my views and that God can use them as much as He would use me. This is also an emotional topic because it has implications not only for God’s character, but ours as well. No side is without its difficult verses. I have heard you debate Calvinists before and handle yourself in a more temperate manner than I would have. However, over the years I perceive your fuse has shortened with regards to Calvinism. Perhaps you are frustrated that, as the passages seem more clearly Arminian as you read over them again, that others cannot detect this. Perhaps it is in part because of the often uncharitable behavior of Calvinists that have come and gone on this forum. All of this is understandable. However, I am concerned that at times when I peek in on this forum, there are posts promoting false doctrines such as open theism which illicit no response from you, while my offering a Calvinistic answer to another blogger becomes your personal fight to win. You can say that you are not trying to score points, but you appear somewhat insincere in saying that since you keep calling me names in round-about ways. It is as if you are having a conversation about me without speaking to me. You won’t come out and call me proud, but you “wonder” if I have been carrying secret pride all these years (I never confessed that I did, by the way), or wondering if I am projecting my pride onto others. Calvinists live in their own world, one of elitists, and I am a Calvinist; “let him who hath understanding” reckon what this means, huh? What bothers me is that you know me personally, and although we have not spoken often over the years, I am not a stranger. Honestly, I am not harboring anger or pride toward my Arminian brothers and sisters, but I am concerned that you do find it more important to point out the alleged weakness in Calvinism when comments that cut to the core of God’s immutable nature and character are accepted without comment from you.
I am thankful for the years I spent studying the scripture under your teaching, and ironically you were instrumental in me becoming a Calvinist. It was your tape series on Biblical counseling with its references to Jay Adams that encouraged me to be willing to read books by Calvinists, even though at that time I held them in suspicion. It was your debate with Andrew Sandlin that introduced me to Reconstructionism. This degree of openness is commendable. I hope, however, as the administrator of this website and as someone who is viewed as a respected teacher that you will devote more time defending the very attributes of God such as His knowledge of the future than defending the forum against me. My exegesis will not shipwreck the faith of the members of this forum, but I believe that Open Theism will. My posts were not like the obnoxious writings of Calvinists we have seen on this forum before that were filled with personal attacks, yet you felt more concern in defending Aminianism than I have seen you show in defending such things as God’s omniscience.
With all that said, thank you for your teaching ministry, your generosity, and your friendship. I hope the latter will continue as long as we both live.made
Last edited by
leeweiland on Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
In Christ,
David