Great work Dave,this is invaluable information for me when I talk with Calvinists. I cant wait until I get the chance to dish out 2 Chron 16, 26 on someone.
"in one Hades of a bind"...took me a second but I got it! LOL.
Maybe this Romans 3 stuff is one big misunderstanding, have the Catholics and Protestants ever considered that maybe St Paul never hear/read 2 Chronicles? 
Anyway, I didnt see you use one of the famous passages from Eze 18:21-24. How can a "righteous" man turn to sin and be punished with death? Another favorite is 2 Peter 1:9.
One powerful passage I found as I was reading the Bible (for some reason I havnt found any Catholics who use it) is the Parable of the Rich Man according to Mark 10. The verse to check out is 21:
"Jesus looked at him and loved him."
According to Calvinists Jesus only truly loves certain people, yet here we have Jesus loving someone who can only do half of what Jesus demands of him and as we all know he turns away from Jesus (v22f).
Its clear when Catholics use the right verses Calvinists fall into the dangerous trap that Peter warned about "They twist the Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Pt 3:16).
WHOA!...just a quick correction for the above post which is BOUND to get exploited if I dont say something...
I didnt mean to say I dont know of any Catholics who use the Bible...what I MEANT to get across is that I havnt seen any Catholic Apologists use Mark 10:21.
Are Alvin Plantinga, R. C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and Francis A Schaefer anti-Catholic, Dave? Eventually I’m going to read Defending your Faith by R.C. Sproul.
(cont)
Since Francis A Schaefer died in 1984, I should have written the above differently. One of Norman Geisler’s (I read parts of one of his books in 1998 ) books had a positive influence on my interest in classical apologetics.
I had never seen a video of Francis A Schaefer before. This is fascinating http://images.google.com/imgres?...l%3Den%26sa%
3DN
I've always been mystified by the attraction many Protestants have for this abysmally stupid doctrine of "total depravity." Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why these unfortunate people seem so bent on worshiping this sad idol of their own making. Could it be (if the "morals" of the "reformers" themselves are any guide) , that it is ultimately sex (and "the dirtier the better" as one fundamentalist put it) which is at the root of this idolatry?
I must confess I'm a little confused.
Dave said "But some there are clearly saved without the benefit of the gospel". Yet Romans 10 clearly says in vs.17, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Is the "word of God" mentioned here not the gospel? If it is not - then what is it?
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 1:16 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." Again - gospel - belief - salvation.
Plus, it seems to be speculation where it is claimed that in Romans 2, "he talks about "righteous" people who can do "good" and who are capable of "well-doing" even without the Law, let alone the gospel of Jesus Christ"
That claim makes no sense to me when you get down to verse 29 which says, "but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."
How would a person be a "Jew...inwardly...in the Spirit" unless by the salvation of God? Again - this doesn't make sense to me when I read the whole chapter. Romans is a letter to the Roman church. He wrote this to people who already believed. This puts the letter in context.
Anyway, thanks for the prompting to study 2 Chronicles more closely. Interesting.
Hi Kyl,
Are Alvin Plantinga, R. C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and Francis A Schaefer anti-Catholic, Dave? Eventually I’m going to read Defending your Faith by R.C. Sproul.
Plantinga and Geisler are not. Sproul definitely is. Schaeffer probably was, but might be a borderline case. He still (like Sproul) has much to offer, and I was highly influenced by him in my own apologetics and appreciation of the "Christian worldview."
I would even regard Schaeffer (like Geisler, and to a lesser extent, Sproul) as one of my mentors. I like both Sproul and Schaeffer a lot. It's sad that their outlook was (is) clouded by the irrational bias against Catholicism. But such is life.
Ironically, the first time I met Steve Ray, back in 1982, at the Protestant youth group I used to go to (where I met my wife), he was giving a presentation based on Schaeffer (because he had studied with him at L'Abri). I was put off by the anti-Catholicism being expressed, and talked to him afterwards about it. The apple doesn't fall that far from the tree, as they say.
Talk about irony, huh? The other funny thing is that in 1986, I was virtually "excommunicated" from my Assembly of God congregation (renounced from the pulpit) because I had dared to leave and wrote a letter expressing why. I had defended (rabid anti-Catholic) Dave Hunt against personal attacks having to do with his criticism of the hyper-faith movement and his book The Seduction of Christianity.
So I was fighting the same errors back then as a Protestant that I do now. I just hadn't figured out yet that the roots of a lot of this error went back to the very origins of Protestantism. That was to come four years later.
But I am always very thankful to God for my evangelical days (1977-1990) and look back at them with the utmost fondness. Whenever I do general apologetics, most of what I write about was learned in that period. There is much truth, and much that can be learned by Catholics from Protestants. I know this for certain because I was in that group and I know what it is like. There is error too, but we can always rejoice in the great amount of truth and common ground.
Hi Nick,
Those are some great verses. Thanks! I'll add them to the paper, to strengthen it. I hadn't done a Bible word search of "righteous." I was concentrating on the "seek the LORD" motif, because of the nature of the passage I was dealing with (Rom 3:10-12).
No doubt several more similar passages could be found in such a search. But Calvinists will always try to find a way to explain them away, no matter how implausible or incoherent it is. They wouldn't be who they are if they didn't do that. The predetermined theology (no pun intended) always rules the day, no matter how hard it is to harmonize Scripture with it.
Funny, how that is invariably the thing that they always accuse non-Calvinists of doing (eisegesis). Projection . . . (very common in theology as well as in everyday life).
One powerful passage I found as I was reading the Bible (for some reason I havnt found any Catholics who use it) is the Parable of the Rich Man according to Mark 10. The verse to check out is 21:
"Jesus looked at him and loved him."
According to Calvinists Jesus only truly loves certain people, yet here we have Jesus loving someone who can only do half of what Jesus demands of him and as we all know he turns away from Jesus (v22f).
I don't think this accurately reflects what Calvinists believe. As far as I know (I could be wrong on this) limited atonement doesn't entail any lack of love on God's part, only an application of His justice.
Quote:Dave A:
>>I don't think this accurately reflects what Calvinists believe. As far as I know (I could be wrong on this) limited atonement doesn't entail any lack of love on God's part, only an application of His justice.
Well Im not sure what happened but the above post didnt show up all the way.
Anyway, what I was saying is that Im pretty sure Im not misrepresenting Calvinism when I say Jesus only died for a select few, and hence only truly loved a select few. Its no mistake that they dont consider passages like Jn 3:16 to be really talking about God loving the whole world but rather they insist this for a select few.
I'd have to see more on that.
I added the passages you noted and a few more, with some "Bible trivia" tidbits. It added a lot to the argument. Thanks!
Hi David,
I must confess I'm a little confused.
I imagine you would be by now if you are a Calvinist (as it seems you are) and read my paper.
Dave said "But some there are clearly saved without the benefit of the gospel". Yet Romans 10 clearly says
First of all, why do you say "yet", as if to suggest a contradiction in my position, or to deny what I asserted there? Before moving on to your pet prooftext, you have to explain somehow the Pauline data that I already brought to bear on the topic.
Are those people saved or not? If they aren't, then you have to give a plausible alternate reading of the text (Romans 2). If they are, then you have to explain (as I and every other biblical exegete has to do, too) how this can be synthesized with what Paul states in Romans 10.
First things first. Simply switching the topic to somewhere else in Scripture doesn't solve your problem, which is precisely how both strains of thought can be harmonized together.
in vs.17, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Is the "word of God" mentioned here not the gospel? If it is not - then what is it?
Basically, he is talking about the gospel, yes, though when he cites Moses and the prophets, it is a general application to the Law and the OT message of salvation, rather than the gospel per se.
This is precisely the same type of error of interpretation that my paper dealt with: hyper-literal exegesis of one passage so that no exceptions at all are allowed, and ignoring of scores of other verses that have to be properly harmonized with the first one produced.
Why can't we interpret it as a general (proverbial-type) truth and as an encouragement to do evangelism, which is, of course, a very helpful and necessary thing to do (which is why I have devoted my life to it)?
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Good. But you have to harmonize this with other biblical motifs that suggest there is faith and salvation outside of the framework of actually hearing these things.
Proper biblical hermeneutics and systematic theology is not merely a matter of "warring prooftexts": "you gather up all the ones for your side and I'll get a bunch for mine and we'll see who has more!" Presumably, any Christian believes that Scripture is self-consistent and infallible and inspired. It doesn't contradict itself doctrinally.
You have to offer some explanation of passages that don't appear to fit into
(cont.)
. . . the Calvinist schema: "anomalies." And the non-Calvinist has to have an alternative explanation of all the usual Calvinist prooftexts. I believe we can do that. I don't believe, on the other hand, that Calvinists can succeed in explaining away the abundance of biblical indications against their distinctive positions.
Calvinists seem to think they own Bible interpretation, and can overwhelm any challenger with tons of Scripture, especially from Paul, and leave them dumbstruck. It's not true. Lots of Scripture is offered, for sure, but it has to be interpreted rightly, and in harmony with all of God's Word.
Romans 1:16 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." Again - gospel - belief - salvation.
Yes, of course. The gospel has the power to bring about (through the work of the Spirit in men's hearts) the salvation of the lost. Who is denying that? But God's love is far wider than only the circle of those people who have literally heard the gospel. He doesn't damn everyone to hell simply because they were never blessed enough to have heard it. What happened to all the OT saints, for example?
That's why many of us critics of Calvinism feel that it casts aspersions upon God's nature as a merciful, loving God. Calvinists have only the best intentions, wishing to uphold God's sovereignty and majesty and holiness, but they need to realize the alarming implications of their theology with regard to God's character and nature.
Plus, it seems to be speculation where it is claimed that in Romans 2, "he talks about "righteous" people who can do "good" and who are capable of "well-doing" even without the Law, let alone the gospel of Jesus Christ"
That claim makes no sense to me when you get down to verse 29 which says, "but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."
How would a person be a "Jew...inwardly...in the Spirit" unless by the salvation of God? Again - this doesn't make sense to me when I read the whole chapter. Romans is a letter to the Roman church. He wrote this to people who already believed. This puts the letter in context.
Fair enough. A decent point. I would say that if the man discussed in 2:29 is filled with the Spirit and hence regenerated (as he indeed seems to be), that this simply proves my point all the more. In context, he was regenerated without the benefit of hearing the gospel.
You can't have it both ways. You want to say that he must be saved or regenerated because "Spirit" is applied to him, and indications are that he is righteous and in communion with God, but at the same time you argue that this can only come about by hearing the gospel literally.
But the text of Romans 2 doesn't suggest that at all; this is my very point. The book was written to the Roman Christians but it (as a general theological treatise) often addresses others: such as the nonbeliever / atheist (Romans 1) and the Jews. In the early part of the chapter he is addressing (in subject matter) mankind generally, it seems to me ("O man, whoever you are": 2:1; "O man": 2:3; "every man": 2:6; "every human being": 2:9). Then he narrows it down to (righteous) Gentiles (2:14).
These people don't even have the "law", let alone the gospel. That was my argument. They haven't heard the gospel. Does Paul argue that "they must hear the gospel, or they will be damned!"? Nope. He appeals to their conscience, and their conduct, which may "perhaps excuse them on that day when,
(cont.)
. . . according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."
They are judged in light of the gospel, but they haven't heard it themselves.
Yet Paul says they may be saved. I don't see any way out of this for the Calvinist. Simply jumping to the other passage doesn't resolve your difficulty. You have to explain this one somehow, and each in light of the other.
Not only that; Paul argues that knowledge of the the Law can even hinder a man in the sense that he has more opportunity to be a hypocrite. "To whom much is given, much is required." And so he brings in circumcision, and argues that it is meaningless if the circumcised person doesn't keep the law anyway, and that the "real Jew" is the one who keeps the law whether circumcised or not.
It may possibly be that he has a Gentile Christian in mind in 2:29, but I don't think that can be absolutely proven. Why couldn't he be referring to the same righteous (non-Christian) Gentile that he was discussing in 2:14-16? His argument is a continuous one.
Anyway, thanks for the prompting to study 2 Chronicles more closely. Interesting.
You're welcome. I enjoyed the discussion, and hope it can continue, either with you or someone else in your camp.
Dave,
I don't think David P was arguing for total depravity; I think he was discussing salvation apart from the Gospel.
But some there are clearly saved without the benefit of the gospel
What do you mean by this? Are you saying some in the New Testament era have been saved without the Gospel? At best, that seems a dangerous thing to say; at worst, it seems completely irresponsible, because it could lead many to falsely believe they're saved and could lead many others not to witness to those who are truly lost thinking they're already saved without the Gospel.
The Apostle James said, "Accept the Word planted in you which can save you." (James 1:21b) This implies that God's Word (aka the Gospel) is to some degree planted in each of us, and THAT is what the Holy Spirit would use to lead someone who had never heard the name of Jesus to salvation. There's no need for the Holy Spirit to work apart from the Gospel (aka the Word, aka Jesus) when the Gospel (in some way) is within each of us.
Knowing that the Holy Spirit can draw some to God without anyone's help in no way suggests that the Gospel wasn't used. James 1:21 does, however, give us reason to believe that the Gospel can be used in every instance of salvation regardless of what the person has or hasn't heard.
As for the TOTAL depravity of man, does it really matter? Whether we're totally depraved or merely depraved, we're depraved, and our depravity is what leads us to hell. If you want to say people can do good things while on their way to hell, ok; but does it really matter? It makes very little difference whether one does good things or not on his way to hell. Wouldn't you agree?
.
I think 'saved apart from the gospel' would mean appart from an overt acceptance of Jesus as saviour. Of course at some level they would have to say "yes" to the spirit's invitiation and their rejection of Jesus would have to be based on invincible ignorance.
The gist of what Romans says is not that people can be saved without evangelism so why bother? It is quite the opposite. Paul is saying that although salvation is possible very few are being saved that way so we must evangelize.
Does total depravity make a difference? I think it does. Knowing we all have free will gives us more reason to pursue holiness. Our choices can have eternal consequences for us or for those whose lives we influence or fail to influence.
As a Calvinist I did beleive that people did good things on their way to hell. It was a doctrine of common grace. That was a non-saving grace that could produce good works.
Hi guys,
Don't have much time right now, but I did want to throw a few things out. Dave, you are saying "other biblical motifs that suggest there is faith and salvation outside of the framework of actually hearing these things." In the New testament - aside from your points here about Romans 2, are there any other examples that you believe show someone being saved apart from the gospel message? I would say I don't know of any. Maybe you have some other texts that you feel may be more clear.
I'm just asking because my contention is that we are both making an assumption here. You say you brought Pauline data to bear on the topic, but I am suggesting that since it doesn't say either way clearly we are both bringing our preconceived beliefs, based on our theology, to bear to interpret Romans 2 (and 10, etc.).
I guess I'm just trying to say that the reason I am reaching out to other passages isn't just just to bring my favorite proof texts to the table, but because I believe the Bible answers your claim that a person can be saved apart from the gospel.
I know it's proof texting, but Christ even says at the end of Mark to go and preach the gospel to every creature. I'm not sure why He would be that specific if there were various ways to heaven.
I'm not a professional apologist, so perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying. Like Grubb said, I'm not taking on your larger point of "Total Depravity" here. I was just disturbed by the idea that people can be saved apart from the gospel as I have not only never seen any explicit New Testament teaching in the regard - plus from my perspective the New Testament taken as a whole seems pretty clear about the matter.
Thanks - David
...P.S. Dave I will TRY to dig into your points a little more later, but some days are busy...
Hi Grubb
I don't think David P was arguing for total depravity; I think he was discussing salvation apart from the Gospel.
I got the impression that he was a Calvinist. At first I mistook him for someone else, too. So perhaps I was wrong there.
ME: "But some there are clearly saved without the benefit of the gospel"
What do you mean by this?
That the Bible teaches us that some folks can be saved without ever hearing the gospel. This is plainly the case for anyone in the OT who was saved. We know Moses and Elijah were, e.g., because of the Mount of Transfiguration.
Are you saying some in the New Testament era have been saved without the Gospel?
Without hearing it, yes.
At best, that seems a dangerous thing to say;
Nothing that the Bible teaches is "dangerous to say"
at worst, it seems completely irresponsible, because it could lead many to falsely believe they're saved and could lead many others not to witness to those who are truly lost thinking they're already saved without the Gospel.
People distort lots of stuff in the Bible. That doesn't man we cease teaching truths, just because someone may warp and twist them.
The Apostle James said, "Accept the Word planted in you which can save you." (James 1:21b) This implies that God's Word (aka the Gospel) is to some degree planted in each of us, and THAT is what the Holy Spirit would use to lead someone who had never heard the name of Jesus to salvation. There's no need for the Holy Spirit to work apart from the Gospel (aka the Word, aka Jesus) when the Gospel (in some way) is within each of us.
Yes; that's exactly what I believe. Well-stated. But apparently Calvinists do not. I can't know all the particulars that I would like to discuss, because the big shot anti-Catholic Calvinists out there are unwilling to come and discuss anything with me. I like to interact with live human beings who hold a position.
Knowing that the Holy Spirit can draw some to God without anyone's help in no way suggests that the Gospel wasn't used. James 1:21 does, however, give us reason to believe that the Gospel can be used in every instance of salvation regardless of what the person has or hasn't heard.
Indeed. I am strictly referring to not hearing the Word of the gospel.
As for the TOTAL depravity of man, does it really matter?
It sure did to Luther and Calvin, and Calvinists today. I oppose all false and unbiblical doctrine. It matters a great deal, because falsehood is from Satan the father of lies and does no one any good.
Whether we're totally depraved or merely depraved, we're depraved, and our depravity is what leads us to hell. If you want to say people can do good things while on their way to hell, ok; but does it really matter? It makes very little difference whether one does good things or not on his way to hell. Wouldn't you agree?
In the practical sense tha
. . . that you refer to, I do agree. I feel the same about endless arguments about God's predestination vs. our free will I.e., similarly abstract discussion that affects our walk with Jesus very little if at all). But it was worth spending one day writing a paper about, since I hadn't written an in-depth refutation of Total Depravity in my 26 years of apologetics. It is definitely an issue important enough for one paper.
Hi Dave,
For the record I am pretty Calvanisitic in my thinking so you were correct in assuming so. Not sure who you were mistaking me for though.
David
Hi David,
Dave, you are saying "other biblical motifs that suggest there is faith and salvation outside of the framework of actually hearing these things." In the New testament - aside from your points here about Romans 2, are there any other examples that you believe show someone being saved apart from the gospel message? I would say I don't know of any. Maybe you have some other texts that you feel may be more clear.
As far as I know (I haven't done an in-depth study on it), that is the clearest one. In a recent paper, I wrote:
-----------------------
It doesn't follow that there is no good whatsoever in pagan and Gentile thinking. Jesus "marveled" at the Roman centurion, after all, and said of him: "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith" (Matthew 8:10). Note that this is not simply philosophy and thinking, but "faith." . . . Not all pagan thought is wicked and evil. There is also a lot of truth (and in their morals, as well, as Paul states in Romans 2, and according to how he argued on Mars Hill).
. . . not all that is non-Christian is unalterably opposed to Christianity. There is common ground. That's the point. It even applies to unregenerate souls. We see that Jesus and Paul were quite compassionate and understanding of nonbelievers and didn't seem to regard them to the man as utterly wicked.
On the other hand, the worst condemnations of Paul and Jesus were directed towards Jewish and Christian religious hypocrites who didn't rightly act upon what they believed. Hence Paul emphasized what folks did with the knowledge they possessed, whether Christian (Rom 2:6:9-10,13; 1 Cor 3:8-9; Phil 2:12-13; Titus 3:8; cf. 1 Pet 1:17) or non-Christian (Rom 2:6,9-10,14-15), even tying this directly to justification itself. St. Peter speaks the same language in dealing with Cornelius the Gentile (Acts 10:35), saying that a nonbeliever can be "acceptable" to God. Our Lord Jesus emphasized the same thing again and again (Mt 5:20; 7:16-27; 16:27; 25:31-46; Lk 14:13-14; 18:18-25; Jn 3:36; Rev 22:12).
------------------------
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
"With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith."
[S Th. II II q. 10 a. 4 ad 3 (in some editions ad 4) ]
For related thoughts, see my paper:
Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ide-
church.html
I'm just asking because my contention is that we are both making an assumption here. You say you brought Pauline data to bear on the topic, but I am suggesting that since it doesn't say either way clearly we are both bringing
(cont.)
our preconceived beliefs, based on our theology, to bear to interpret Romans 2 (and 10, etc.).
I believe there is enough material elsewhere, as shown, to support the assumptions of my exegesis, based on cross-referencing.
I guess I'm just trying to say that the reason I am reaching out to other passages isn't just just to bring my favorite proof texts to the table, but because I believe the Bible answers your claim that a person can be saved apart from the gospel.
But the texts you cite have to be harmonized with the ones I have mentioned. That's the whole point. If you believe that the Bible is self-consistent, coherent; indeed, infallible and inspired, you have to find a way to make it all fit together. I have done so (agree or disagree). You have not yet done so. Nor have Calvinists. You are a Calvinist, right? Or did I conclude wrongly that you were?
I know it's proof texting, but Christ even says at the end of Mark to go and preach the gospel to every creature. I'm not sure why He would be that specific if there were various ways to heaven.
It's always good to evangelize rather than not do so, because people are in a better place. To not do so would be like arguing, "we won't go around handing out T-Bone steaks to everybody because they are already getting enough to eat." We don't argue for the bare minimum: "folks can get saved without hearing the gospel so we won't bother to give it to them." No; we want everyone to have the best chance and the best life possible, and besides, we are commanded to preach the gospel anyway, so for Christians it is a non-issue.
I'm not a professional apologist, so perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying.
Hopefully, I have sufficiently clarified it in this comment and the one to Grubb above. I'd be glad to do so further.
Like Grubb said, I'm not taking on your larger point of "Total Depravity" here.
Okay.
I was just disturbed by the idea that people can be saved apart from the gospel as I have not only never seen any explicit New Testament teaching in the regard - plus from my perspective the New Testament taken as a whole seems pretty clear about the matter.
Then I look forward to your thoughts on what I have presented.
Whoever is saved is saved by Jesus Christ and God's grace and by the gospel (and, Catholics believe, somehow in relation to the Catholic Church).
That all remains true whether or not the saved person is consciously aware of it or not. So the gospel of Jesus saves whoever is saved; whether the person hears the gospel is a separate issue. I am denying that they necessarily have to hear it in order to be saved by it.
I was, after all, responding to Spurgeon's claim, agreed-to by James White:
"Men are not usually saved without the immediate agency of the gospel. Some have said that the Spirit of God always works through the truth, and that the truth is su
(cont.)
. . . sure to work conviction. The truth, however, is preached, and faithfully preached, to tens of thousands, to whom it conveys not a blessing at all, but is the savor of death unto death. Others have said that the Spirit of God regenerates men apart from the Word of God but this is not told us in Scripture, and is not therefore to be received."
I denied this, based on the Bible. In my understanding, it is mainstream Calvinist teaching. Perhaps there is allowable variation. If the discussion continues, I'll pursue that further, out of curiosity and desire to better understand the Calvinist position[s?] on it.
Total depravity means man can't make a choice all on his own to believer in and follow God. Man needs the new birth from the Holy Spirit to be able to turn towards God. Total inability is how it's worded in more modern language.
So total depravity (or inability) doesn't mean man can do no good, like take care of his family or give to charity or spend his time inventing or discovering or creating things that help humanity in general; it merely means man can't all on his own make a choice for God, or turn towards God.
Hey Randy,
It's good to hear from you. We haven't talked much lately.
Does total depravity make a difference? I think it does. Knowing we all have free will gives us more reason to pursue holiness. Our choices can have eternal consequences for us or for those whose lives we influence or fail to influence.
But pursuing holiness is useless for the man who will never become a follower of Jesus. It may help him have a decent 60 or 70 years on earth, but that's worthless in the face of eternal separation from God.
Total depravity only describes those who are unsaved or man apart from God, right? After one is saved, he wouldn't be totally depraved would he? If that's true, then our good works may be borne from our nature since we "have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its creator." This is one way that Jesus could consider some people good even though He said, as Dave pointed out, "No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:28 ) Those who are saved would be considered "good", but those who aren't saved would be considered "evil" as mentioned in Matt 12:35 (and possibly totally depraved).
The common grace you speak of may be the very thing that allows unbelievers to do some "good" things that God approves of. But even then, they would be totally depraved apart from God's grace. Is that what Calvin means by total depravity? That no one can do any good apart from God's grace...even if it is simply common grace rather than saving grace.
Would this manner of thinking reconcile total depravity and unbelievers doing "good" works? I'm also interested in your opinion on this Dave. You told David he needed to reconcile all the passages you cited with total depravity. Couldn't common grace be the very thing that reconciles man's total depravity and still being able to do "good" works that God approves of? If not, why not?
.
Grubb,
It's good to hear from you. We haven't talked much lately.
I gave up blogging for lent. Needed to spend more time on other things. I'm glad to be back.
Total depravity only describes those who are unsaved or man apart from God, right? After one is saved, he wouldn't be totally depraved would he?
No, I think it describes us all. That is all the good we do comes totally from the grace of God. It does not involve our choice or require our cooperation. That is because we are incapable of choosing good or cooperating with His grace. I know many Calvinists water down this teaching but I think classical calvinism is very stong on this. We are dead in sin and dead means dead.
That is how he can infer the rest of the TULIP. It all does follow logically but you must you must emphasize that that depravity is total and complete. Many protestants just take the 5th point and reject the first four. That makes no logical sense but the 5th point is Perserverance of the Saints or once saved always saved. People accept that becuase they like it and reject the other 4 because they don't. Real calvinists really look down on such cafeteria calvinists.
Anyway, once you completely crush free will, as Calvin does, you end up with a ton of questions about how God can send people to hell and such. You end up with a very mean God.
Robert,
I went surfing the web, and one of the first sites I came to said this of Calvin:
The following will be quotes from John Calvin, Canons of Dordt on the doctrine of Total Depravity, and a Biblical response to the doctrine of Total Depravity.
John Calvin: "For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence." (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8) Concupiscence is the Greek word "Epithumia" which means: "desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust."
http://www.afcministry.com/
Calvi...l_depravity.htm
It sounds as though Calvin IS saying that man can do nothing good whatsoever apart from God's grace (whether it be common grace or saving grace). I read other sites that said many have tried to soften Calvin's point of total depravity (as you have); but if you could ask Calvin, he would have none of it. He believed every good thing came from God, and if it isn't from God it isn't good; therefore everything man does apart from God is evil or corrupt.
I presume this is why many fight against "total depravity" so hard. It's a hard teaching. The Christian faith has many hard things that we have to accept. Maybe total depravity as Calvin described it is one of those things. Is it so bad to think that all good things come from God somehow?
.
This is a side issue, but since the topic resides around Spurgeon and Randy brought up the idea that the Calvinist "crushes" free will, I can't help but point you to this quote by Spurgeon that, hopefully, will help one see that the Calvinist doesn't believe man has no will at all, but that the will is not "free" in regards to choosing God:
“I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now,if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring. . . .You ask me to reconcile the two. I answer, they do not want any reconcilement; I never tried to reconcile them to myself, because I could never see a discrepancy. . . . Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both”.
The 2 ideas seem to contradict, but the Bible tells us in Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
We see through a glass darkly. Anyway - hope to be back tomorrow.
Hi Robert,
Total depravity means man can't make a choice all on his own to believer in and follow God. Man needs the new birth from the Holy Spirit to be able to turn towards God. Total inability is how it's worded in more modern language.
No; it's much more than that. All major Christian traditions believe that man is unable to save himself. They are all opposed to Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism: views that deny this. That includes Catholics and Orthodox and historic Arminianism (though all are routinely caricatured and misrepresented by Calvinists as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, and even the Lutheran Confessions falsely characterize the Catholic position).
To simply be "anti-Pelagian" is not to automatically believe in total depravity, because the latter goes much further, as I have explained.
So total depravity (or inability) doesn't mean man can do no good, like take care of his family or give to charity or spend his time inventing or discovering or creating things that help humanity in general; it merely means man can't all on his own make a choice for God, or turn towards God.
Again, I disagree. Here is the definition from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 1387):
"the extreme wretchedness of man's condition as the result of the Fall. It emphasizes the belief that this result was not a mere loss or deprivation of a supernatural endowment possessed by unfallen man, but a radical corruption or depravation of his whole nature, so that apart from Christ he can do nothing whatever pleasing to God. Even his reason has been radically vitiated, so that acc. to Calvinism, all natural knowledge of God (such as obtains in the system of St. Thomas Aquinas) is held to be impossible."
Here are some further references as to the definition that Reformed people give for Total Depravity:
The Five Points of Calvinism (Herman Hanko, Homer Hoeksema, and Gise J. Van Baren)
http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/c...s/
chapter1.html
The Bondage of the Will (Martin Luther)
http://www.graciouscall.org/book...ondage/
toc.html
Human Depravity (R.C. Sproul)
http://monergism.com/thethreshol.../
depravity.html
"Original Sin" (from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/
t....viii.xiii.html
"Human Inability" (Charles Spurgeon)
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0182.htm
The Total Depravity of Man (Arthur Pink)
http://www.pbministries.org/book...y/
depravity.htm
"Total Inability" (from Loraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)
http://www.ccel.org/b/boettner/p.../predest/
10.htm
"Total Depravity" (John Piper)
http://monergism.com/thethreshol.../
depravity.html
What do the Protestant Reformers Mean by 'Total Depravity'? (Victor Shepherd)
http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/
...theology_i9.htm
More articles from Monergism.com:
http://www.monergism.com/directo...depravity&
B1=Go
Couldn't common grace be the very thing that reconciles man's total depravity and still being able to do "good" works that God approves of? If not, why not?
Could be. I'd have to brush up on what Calvinists think about that. I agree that every good thing comes from God's grace in one way or another.
Remember, though, that this started with White's use of Romans 3:10-12:
10: as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
11: no one understands, no one seeks for God.
12: All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one."
He takes this literally. I have argued why I think it is not only not literal, but cannot possibly be literal, if we are to maintain a non-contradictory Bible. If White is right (and he always is, after all; he has never been known to be wrong on anything), man can do no good whatsoever. Now maybe White means this in the sense of "apart from common grace" -- which I would agree with. We can only speculate and deduce, since the man won't come and discuss things like human beings do. He only pontificates and debates in person.
I was just going by what he says. I agree that there is probably a more nuanced expression of Calvinism from others besides White. How much latitude there is on this sort of thing, I'm not sure.
I'm gonna cite some of the Calvinist authors I listed above:
Hodge:
"5. The fifth form of doctrine to which the Protestant faith stands opposed, is that which admits a moral deterioration of our nature, which deserves the displeasure of God, and which is therefore truly sin, and yet denies that the evil is so great as to amount to spiritual death, and to involve the entire inability of the natural man to what is spiritually good.
. . . "The whole human race, by their apostasy from God, are totally depraved. By total depravity, is not meant that all men are equally wicked; nor that any man is as thoroughly corrupt as it is possible for a man to be; nor that men are destitute of all moral virtues. The Scriptures recognize the fact, which experience abundantly confirms, that men, to a greater or less degree, are honest in dealings, kind in their feelings, and beneficent in their conduct. Even the heathen, the Apostle teaches us, do by nature the things of the law. They are more or less under the dominion of conscience, which approves or disapproves their moral conduct. All this is perfectly consistent with the Scriptural doctrine of total depravity, which includes the entire absence of holiness; the want of due apprehensions of the divine perfections, and of our relation to God 234as our Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, Governor, and Redeemer. There is common to all men a total alienation of the soul from God so that no unrenewed man either understands or seeks after God; no such man ever makes God his portion, or God’s glory the end of his being. The apostasy from God is total or complete. All men worship and serve the creature rather than, and more than the Creator. They are all therefore declared in Scripture to be spiritually dead. They are destitute of any principle of spiritual life."
You're now talking about acts as seen in relation to God and God's judgment on fallen, unsaved man. No acts of goodness, in relation to God, are good for salvation or turning away the wrath of God, or for being approving of God. This is the subject of salvation though. The subject of your post is different. You stated the doctrine of total depravity means man can do no good as in natural good, civil righteousness, etc. Fallen, unsaved Man can do good that gets the approval of fellow men, but not God; this is what Total Depravity means.
Hodge, then, acknowledges that unregenerate men can have some "moral virtues" and can be honest, kind, and beneficent. They are not as wicked as they can possibly be. Yet he describes the same people as burdened by "the entire absence of holiness" (which seems to be a contradiction).
He says: "no unrenewed man either understands or seeks after God; . . . The apostasy from God is total or complete."
I think I have massively disproved this last part from the many Scriptures I have already provided about men seeking God.
In fact, it is blown out of the water, in my opinion, by the story of Corenlius alone:
1: At Caesare'a there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
2: a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.
3: About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius."
4: And he stared at him in terror, and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.
(Acts 10:1-4)
So this man was "devout"; he "feared God" and "prayed constantly to God." The Bible appears to teach that an angel truly spoke to him (see esp. 10:7; cf. the Holy Spirit in 10:19-20), and that his prayers were answered.
Cornelius' three servants tell Peter:
"Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say."
(Acts 10:22)
Cornelius repeats his experience to Peter (10:30-33) and then Peter responds:
"Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality,
35: but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
(10:34-35)
Then we know that Cornelius did not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit (nor of baptism) because these happenings are described in 10:44-48:
44: While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45: And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46: For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47: "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Slam-dunk against these aspects of total depravity that Hodge describes, if you ask me . . .
You stated the doctrine of total depravity means man can do no good as in natural good, civil righteousness, etc.
I think you're correct. My language was excessive there, and I should go revise it.
Fallen, unsaved Man can do good that gets the approval of fellow men, but not God
Here I disagree, because Scripture indicates that God does approve of a lot of this stuff, before regeneration occurs, as in the case of Cornelius that I just described, which is crystal-clear: couldn't be any clearer than it is.
You havn't shown that Cornelius sought after God with a heart of stone. The Holy Spirit didn't just appear among God's people at Pentecost. All we know from Scripture regarding Cornielius' inner life regarding God is he feared God (which is an O.T. synonym for having faith). He no doubt came to this faith via the Word of God and the Hioly Spirit.
This subject of total depravity, as I stated in a comment above, is confused by the word 'depravity'. The word is good, but people assume it refers to behaving in some sort of absolute criminal, violent, self-centered way at all times in all things, which is absurd. Read Calvin's Institutes, since you quoted him, at book 2, chapter 2, sections 12 through 17. There are no short sound bites to lift, but you can see he covered this rather thoroughly.
He no doubt came to this faith via the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
So he had the Spirit before he had the Spirit (Acts 10:44-47)?
There is a mischaracterization that keeps coming up by Protestants here.
IF BY "Total Depravity" you mean "Total Inability" which is the inability to do good apart from God's grace then Catholics AGREE.
One problem with the Calvinist idea of Total Depravity is that they say man can do "good" yet when pushed will admit this "good" is not the same as what God considers good...for example, a non-Christian fireman who saves a Christian family...Calvinists would praise this fireman with the highest honors but wouldnt believe he did something praiseworthy and good in God's eyes, they believe in God's eyes that fireman is in a unsaved state and abhorrent in the eyes of God.
Catholics believe God gave the grace for the fireman to risk his life and in fact participate in one of the highest forms of love (risking your life for your friends). Catholics would say this fireman did good in the eyes of God and such good is no different than any good a Christian could perform.
Another powerful quote is from the Parable of the Prodigal son (Luke 15), which Robert Sungenis in his masterpiece "NOT BY FAITH ALONE" points out while the Son left communion with the Father the Son was rightly called "dead" at least twice (15:24,32), YET while spiritually dead he received the grace to repent and return to the Father. This is the kind of "dead" that people like St Paul are talking about.
Calvinism cant explain that parable because they believe its impossible for a son to become "dead" later in life. Rather, as I noted above how they dont believe the fireman could do something truly good (in God's eyes), in the case of the Prodigal son they dont believe the son did something truly bad (in God's eyes).
Nick - you say "Catholics would say this fireman did good in the eyes of God...". Fine - but if he isn't a believer he's still going to hell, isn't he?
Will he merit heaven through that act? We he earn himself a less hot hell?
The problem is much like the way Grubb stated it earlier. If the end result is hell, then his good works mean nothing in light of eternity.
It depends on if he was an unbeliever on purpose (which is a sin) or ignorant of the truth as the people in Rom 2 are described (in which he could possibly be saved).
As for "if the end is hell" comment, that is a presumption, that is the problem with your understanding of Total Depravity, there is really no such thing as good works or bad works because its all about if you have been justified by faith alone, in which the "saved" can do no wrong and the "unsaved" can do no right.
Arthur Pink (source above, chapter 9) makes it abundantly clear what I am opposing as unscriptural:
--------------------
Men are "only evil" without exception, wholly so; there is not a single virtuous one among them. Furthermore, they are "evil continually," without intermission all the days of their lives, therefore all their works are evil and fruitless. [Gen 6:5]
. . . From the first moment of his existence, every descendant of Adam is a defiled creature, fit only for God’s abhorrence. His very instincts while in embryo are essentially evil. The Hebrew word for "youth" is translated "childhood" in I Samuel 12:2; both personal experience and observation sadly verify the solemn fact that, as Charnock said, there is "not a moment of a man’s life wherein our hereditary corruption doth not belch its froth." . . . obnoxious to God, corrupt in itself! Man is thoroughly unclean, as his life bears witness, his very righteousness being "as filthy rags"-so impure that nothing but the blood of Christ can cleanse him.
. . . fallen man does not enter this world as bad as he can be, but he has "no good thing" in him (Rom. 7:1
. Instead he is wholly corrupt, entirely vitiated throughout his constitution.
The natural man has not one iota of holiness in him; rather he is horn with the seeds of every form of evil, radically inclined to sin. In our nature we are vileness itself, black as hell, . . .
The solemn doctrine of total depravity does not mean that there are no parents with genuine love for their children, and no children who respectfully obey their parents; that there are none imbued with a spirit of benevolence to the poor and kind sympathy for the suffering; that there are no conscientious employers or honest employees. But it does mean that, where the unregenerate are concerned, those duties are discharged without any love for God, any subjection to His authority, or any concern for His glory. Parents are required to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and children are to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph. 6:1, 4). Servants are to serve their masters ‘’in singleness of heart, as unto Christ.’’ Do the unconverted comply with those injunctions? No, therefore their performances not only possess no spiritual value, but are polluted. Every act of the natural man is faulty. "The plowing of the wicked is sin" (Prov. 21:4) because it is for selfish ends. Then is it better not to plow at all? Wrong, for slothfulness is equally sinful. There are different degrees of enormity, but every act of man is sinful.
. . . His chief obligation is to live for the glory of God and to love Him with all his heart; but while he remains unrenewed he does not have the least spiritual, holy, true love for Him. Whatever there may be in his domestic and social conduct which is admirable in the eyes of others, it is not prompte
(cont.)
. . . prompted by any respect for the divine will. So far as man’s self-recovery and self-recuperation are concerned, his depravity is total, in the sense of being decisive and final.
. . . As might well be expected, fierce opposition has been made against this flesh-withering truth of the total depravity of man, and always will be where it is faithfully preached. When men are informed that they are suffering from something far more serious than a defect in their characters or an unhappy bias of disposition, namely, that their very nature is rotten to the core, it is more than human pride can endure. When told that the center of their moral being is corrupt, that their heart—the potent fountain from which issue their desires and thoughts—is desperately wicked, that it is inherently and radically evil from the first moment of their existence, hot resentment is at once aroused. It is indeed awful to contemplate that not only is sin the element in which the natural man lives, but the whole of his life is one unmixed course of evil.
. . . Every passage in the Word of truth which declares the impossibility of the natural man doing anything acceptable to God (e.g., Jer. 13:23; Matt. 7:18; Rom. 8:8; Heb. 11:6) demonstrates man’s total depravity.
. . . If all men alike are totally depraved, then how is it that some lead less vicious lives than others? In examining this question it is necessary to revert to our definition of terms, and bear in mind that total depravity does not consist in what a man does, but what he is in himself. It also consists in a man's relation and attitude to God. Because particular persons are not swearers, morally unclean, drunkards or thieves, they are very apt to imagine they are far from being wholly corrupt; in fact, they consider themselves good and respectable people. These are described in Proverbs 30:12: "There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness." However irreproachable may be the walk of the natural man, his nature is polluted and his heart thoroughly defiled. And the very fact that he is quite unaware of his vileness is sad proof of the binding power of indwelling sin.
. . . None by nature possesses the slightest degree of holiness.
. . . The rejection which this doctrine meets with demonstrates how dense is that darkness which is not dispelled by so clear a light, and how great is the power of Satan when the testimony of divine revelation does not carry conviction. Every effort to tone it down verifies the fact that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."
I was wondering how the following might relate to the present discussion of man's so-called “total depravity”?
From Luther, vol. 1 by Hartmann Grisar.
Grisar writes:
Luther cannot assure us sufficiently often that man is nothing but sin, and sins in everything. His reason is that concupiscence remains in man after baptism. This concupiscence he looks upon as real sin, in fact it is the original sin, enduring original sin, so that original sin is not removed by baptism, remains obdurate to all subsequent justifying grace, * and, until death, can, at the utmost, only be diminished. P. 98
Not only does real sin continue to dwell in man through concupiscence, but, according to a further statement of Luther, the keeping of God s law is impossible to man.
" As we cannot keep God s commandments we are really always in unrighteousness, and therefore there remains nothing for us but to fear and to beg for remission of the unrighteousness, or rather that it may not be imputed, for it is never altogether remitted, but remains and requires
the act of non-imputation.” P.100
In the believers and in those who sigh unrighteousness is absent only because Christ comes to their assistance with the fulness of His sinlessness, and covers over their imperfections." 3 Even when we " do good, we sin " (" bene operando peccamus "), so runs his paradoxical thesis; " but Christ covers over what is wanting and does not impute it." P. 101
To be honest, my gut instincts tell me that this kind of talk is not only unsound, but actually quite perverse. Are my instincts wrong?
"There is a mischaracterization that keeps coming up by Protestants here.
IF BY "Total Depravity" you mean "Total Inability" which is the inability to do good apart from God's grace then Catholics AGREE."
No, inability in the term total inability refers to man's inability to choose to follow God without first being given a heart of flesh for his heart of stone by God. It doesn't refer to an inability to do good acts that please our fellow man.
Dave said:
Arthur Pink (source above, chapter 9) makes it abundantly clear what I am opposing as unscriptural:
Whoops! I didn't see your post Dave. But as it turns out, it seems my theme was more or less a natural continuation of yours. Must’ve been tuned to your frequency or something! Strange!
It is quite perverse and bizarre, Ben (and remarkably unbiblical). I had read those things in Grisar in 1990 when studying Catholic critiques of Luther. It was one of the things that quickened my journey into Catholicism considerably (Luther previously having been one of my big heroes).
I mentioned Total Depravity as a factor in my conversion story in Surprised by Truth. It's a bit weird that I haven't written a meaty paper on it till now: 17 years later. But there are so many topics to cover in Catholic apologetics . . .
Thanks for that Dave.
Needless to say, I find the eagerness with which some Protestants embrace that goofy stuff absolutely incomprehensible. Dear God, just the thought of those unnatural statements makes me want to run and bathe!
Little wonder Melanchthon ( in a moment of sanity and candor) could say that “not all the waters of the Elbe would be sufficient for me to weep over the evils of the Reformation.”
Paging Dr. Freud!
But Ben; you don't understand! It's because this doctrine is so repugnant to human pride and self-image, that we oppose it.
Doesn't that sound familiar for anti-Catholics?: "if you oppose me you are evil scum." Eric Svendsen has damned people to hell on more than one occasion.
You see the root of it . . .
Dave, Svendsen et al. really do have, in my humble opinion, a few screws loose (and a few popped rivets to boot if you ask me!). I'm amazed that seemingly rational people fall for their nonsensical theology.
Personally, I still think this whole love affair with the doctrine of “total depravity” is, at least in many instances, rooted in some sort of moral failing. It may or may not be related to sex, but it is most assuredly related to pride!
Not that I’m a saint myself, but good grief, just look at the lives of the Protestant founders whose teachings and “insights” Svendsen & co. think the rest of the world should accept.
Here is something I ran across just today. You’re probably familiar with it.
“Young John [Calvin], being destined by his father for the church, early gave himself to the study of theology, in which his brilliant talents enabled him to achieve such success, that, like Zwingli, he obtained as the reward of his proficiency several ecclesiastical benefices. But cleverness and study can not compensate for a bad character and loose morals, AND BOTH THE CHARACTER AND MORALS OF CALVIN WERE INFAMOUS.”
To be sure, it cannot be denied that the founders of Protestantism, like that first Protestant (Satan), were unusually gifted and blessed creatures, who, without doubt, had been created for great and glorious futures: Satan, surely to be a great luminary in heaven; the reformers, great luminaries in the Church. But such glory was not to be.
Instead, the great sin of pride became, in each case, their undoing.
And just as Lucifer spoiled the first creation by his pride and rebellion, so too the reformers, by following in the footsteps of that proud and disobedient "accuser of the brethren” (rev.12: 10) spoiled in a most dramatic fashion, the truth, unity, and beauty of the second creation -- Christendom.
And in their respective falls, how many "legions" have tragically fallen with them?
Wow, Ben. "...like that first Protestant (Satan)...". Rather than being offended I laughed out loud at that quip. Also, I see were allowed to bring up the "lives of the reformers" to prove our points - yet I imagine we're not allowed to bring up the corruption of certain Popes or the Catholic abuses that led to the reformation in the first place. Fortunately, as a satanic protestant - I believe no man is infallable - so the failings of reformers really only magnifies my belief that only God is perfect. Just kiddin' you a little here, Ben.
Seriously though – Dave – I wanted to get a little more specific and address the points you make about 2 Chronicles chapters 19 and 20. I sat down and read some last night, so thanks for the prompting. It’s better time spent than watching tv . You speak of Jehosaphat seeking after God yet being subject to God’s wrath. You make it sound like he is an “unbeliever”, if you will, seeking after God. If we head back to chapter 17 we see the following:
2 Chronicles 17:3 Now the LORD was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the former ways of his father David; he did not seek the Baals,
4 but sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments and not according to the acts of Israel.
5 Therefore the LORD established the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah gave presents to Jehoshaphat, and he had riches and honor in abundance.
6 And his heart took delight in the ways of the LORD; moreover he removed the high places and wooden images from Judah.
This is where his story begins. It seems to me we do not have a case here where an unrighteous man is seeking God. The reason for God’s wrath in chapter 19 – is because Jehosaphat sinned against God and God was angry with him. But chapter 17 paints him as a “believer” who walked in the ways of the Lord. Only later, because of his sin, is God angry with him. At the very least, we can’t begin talking about Jehoshaphat in verse 19. That takes his life out of context. Anyway – just a short observation about this point.
In John Piper's defense of total depravity he wrote:
In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.
http://www.monergism.com/thethre.../
depravity.html
So even things that God approves of (like saving someone from a burning building) could be considered evil by Him if those things are done for the wrong reason. The Pharisee praying braggadociously in Luke 18:9-12 did a good thing in praying to God, but his motive for praying was self serving. I dare say God viewed the Pharisee's prayer as an evil thing, even though prayer itself is generally considered a good thing.
Now with Cornelius, it appears that what he did was by faith, so some would say there was good in him before salvation. But Paul said, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8 ) So even if Cornelius' faith was in God, it was only a gift from God that allowed him to have that faith.
If "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17), then the gift of an unsaved fireman pulling my precious daughter from a burning building MUST be from God. The one thing that continues to reconcile all these passages together is that God gives what we call common grace to everyone to enable them to do things that we consider good...like pulling someone from a burning building. But even though God wanted my daughter saved and is pleased that she's saved, He may consider the act "evil" with regards to the fireman if the fireman did it out of pride.
Without God's presence, it appears there would be no good "gifts"; therefore without God's common grace, it appears that man is totally depraved.
.
Hi Ben,
Who is saying that Calvin had "bad character and loose morals", and what evidence does he produce for this claim? I would take broad accusations like that with a huge grain of salt.
Continuing our survey of this unbiblical view, here are some highlights of John Piper's analysis:
------------------------------
Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace.
The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.
--------------------
Here is a prime example of ridiculous biblical exegesis: taking a single passage in radical isolation from its surroundings and forcing it to apply to a supposed universal application, so that every single act done in a state prior to regeneration and without faith and perfect motivation (as if most acts of regenerated people are that pure and without any admixture of ill motives or pride or any number of negative factors!) is sin and nothing but sin.
The context is utterly ignored, and it has to do with matters of conscience and allowable differences, and the weaker brethren; matters of food and holy days. This theme is continued in the first part of ch. 15.
Thus, Paul's statement, "he who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" -- is intended as a commentary on violating one's conscience. Hence, Eerdmans Bible Commentary on 14:22-23:
"The happy man is the one whose conscience is clear. But the one who acts against his conscience condemns himself. 23 Faith, i.e., in this context, is the all-important factor. To change one's behaviour in such a matter without believing that it is the right thing to do is, in fact, sin."
More from Piper (my comments in brackets]:
Of course totally depraved men can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-1. But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God.
[This is more of the same silliness, based on the mistaken notion that nothing is good at all unless it proceeds from absolutely pure motivations. But virtually no one is ever able to achieve this sublime level of holiness. Romans 7 would seem to have made that obvious to one and all. If hardly any Christians can do this, then why make it a requirement of the unregenerate man, or else if he fails, we conclude that even his good work is altogether sinful and evil?]
The totality of our rebellion is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes."
[I've dealt with the glaring fallacy of a hyper-literalistic interpretation of this passage in the main post]
It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments. Apart from conversion, no one comes to the light of God.
[More self-serving, logically circular eisegesis. The Bible says that many who seem not to have yet been regenerated, seek God. This other business of motives for seeking God is simply read into the passages (more eisegesis). I freely grant that men don't seek God as they should, but that applies to most Christians as well ]
In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.
Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.
[more abominable exegesis; not even worthy of a reply. I find this flat-out amazing. You simply find any passage remotely applicable to something and then transform it into a sweeping, all-encompassing principle. Forget context altogether; ignore many verses that contradict the supposed principle expressed in the radically isolate single prooftext . . .]
In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we t
(cont.)
. . . think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:1. "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.
[Of course all good things we do are a result of God's grace; no argument there. The fallacy, however, lies in not realizing that Paul is a person, not just a combination of flesh and spirit. Paul the person fell prey to sin. His motives weren't absolutely pure and noble at all times, as he himself recognizes here. He is relatively more righteous, but the unbeliever has the same "mixed dynamic" tilted in the other direction. He can sometimes do good things, and it is absurd to utterly dismiss all good that a nonbeliever does as pure evil, simply because it may not be perfect in motivation. The good is an objective thing apart from the motivation. It's a double standard: the nonbeliever's good works are tarnished and condemned altogether because he isn't pure, but Paul's works really are good, because he is totally pure (?????!!!!!!!). NOT! ]
NOTE: We recognize that the word "good" has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good.
[Yes, of course. The usual Protestant doublethink (as we see in exaggerated applications of imputed justification): something is good and not good at the same time, but it is, of course, ultimately NOT good, because accepting the face value of biblical texts talking about "good" people and good works would mess up the preconceived presuppositionalist logically circular, eisegetically-driven half-baked pap that is total depravity.]
For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.
[Yep; it is a very minor thing called the Ten Commandments. Us ignorant Catholics have been accustomed (naively, no doubt) to regarding them as "good" things, and observance of them as good behavior. Too bad it's not the case.]
Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.
[isn't it amazing that Catholics are so often accused of reading into Scripture things that aren't there, when you see this sort of "apply-our-piece-of-prior- tradition-no-matter-how-badly-it-fits-into-the-
overall-biblical-puzzle" eisegesis?]
In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, . . .
[No matter how many biblical passages teach otherwise . . .]
Dave,
Regarding "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father...." (James 1:17) you said in your reply to Piper's statement, "Of course all good things we do are a result of God's grace; no argument there", so it sounds as though you agree with this passage and that neither Piper nor I took it out of context.
Logically speaking then, if God isn't in the equation, NOTHING good can be done, because all good things come from Him. This fact alone leads us to acknowledge that all of our good deeds are the result of God's grace (which you've agreed with); and man without God and His grace can do NO good. THAT is total depravity, isn't it?
At the beginning of all this, I truly wasn't a "Total Depravity" defender, as I had never given it much thought. But seeing how all good gifts are from God, and common grace reconciles every passage you've mentioned with man's total depravity apart from God, it seems that total depravity can be right. Don't you agree?
.
You refuse to see the distinction between words, thoughts, and deeds as judged good or bad in regards to our fellow man and words, thoughts, and deeds as judged worthy of saving our souls.
Total depravity means there is no part of our being that is free from the effects of the fall (free from original sin and active sin). I.e., it effects our understanding, our will, our emotional life, etc. So this means we can't turn to God by our own volition. We need God to give us a heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone. Only God can do that.
Until then we are - to use Tyndale's metaphor - like a poisonous snake. We may strike, or we may not strike, but either way it's our nature to strike, and we have poison in us that we can't get out of us.
The doctrines of grace are hard doctrine to accept. Our 'old man' within us will do anything to avoid accepting such hard truths of our condition.
Logically speaking then, if God isn't in the equation, NOTHING good can be done, because all good things come from Him. This fact alone leads us to acknowledge that all of our good deeds are the result of God's grace (which you've agreed with); and man without God and His grace can do NO good. THAT is total depravity, isn't it?
No, because you are collapsing total depravity into the notion that "good things can only be done by God's grace." They are not identical. Catholics agree with this notion, but deny Total depravity. Jimmy Akin cited Catholic authority in this regard:
"In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: "For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary" (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that "as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) and that "man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that "without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him" (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God's grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God."
Akin added, from St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching:
"Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere."
[Summa Theologiae I-II:109:2-10]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSW...SWERS/
TULIP.htm
Total Depravity, on the other hand, says that an unregenerated man can do no good thing, period. Even if he does what we would call a "good thing" when a believer did it, somehow it must be unremittingly wicked and evil when the nonbeliever does it.
This is moral insanity; certainly not a biblical doctrine. The Council of Trent condemns it in its Canon VII on justification:
"If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema."
So here is the fundamental difference:
Total Inability: "good things can only be done by God's grace."
Total Depravity: "no good thing whatsoever can be done by an unregenerate man; it's all evil no matter what it is."
You assume that God gives the unregenerate man this "common grace" by which he can do good things., But I haven't seen that Calvinists allow this (if you disagree, please kindly direct me to a citation that establishes this). It
D. Armstrong said (04.18.07 - 2:18 pm)The good is an objective thing apart from the motivation. It's a double standard: the nonbeliever's good works are tarnished and condemned altogether because he isn't pure, but Paul's works really are good, because he is totally pure
--------
Nick: This is the sad, disturbing, doublethink, fact. As I said above they call it good on one hand but when you probe a bit deeper they admit in the eyes of God they believe it is still an abomination.
If you wouldnt have brought those quotes to our attention we (at least I) wouldnt have known just how bad and despicable the situation really was. I guarantee if the majority of Protestants knew these "details" from the mouths of their leaders they would cease to be Protestant.
(cont.)
. . . It's a Catholic notion, because we believe that a measure of goodness survived the Fall, and that was because of grace and God's mercy.
The Calvinist says that the unbeliever can do natural good (and that only in a limited sense) but deny that it is spiritually good. This clearly reduces to absurdity, for it would mean that if a nonbeliever came and rescued my entire family from a mad gunman and then jumped in front of my daughter and was killed instead of her, this would be an evil, wicked act, and regarded as such by God Himself, whereas if a Christian did all the same things he would be a big hero and worthy of all praise and it (the same exact thing) would be a good, loving act. Not only would the nonbeliever's actions be wicked, but he couldn't even have the right motive to do what he did.
At the beginning of all this, I truly wasn't a "Total Depravity" defender, as I had never given it much thought. But seeing how all good gifts are from God, and common grace reconciles every passage you've mentioned with man's total depravity apart from God, it seems that total depravity can be right. Don't you agree?
Not at all. You don't believe in the doctrine because you haven't yet grasped what it is. You have to understand the crucial distinctions above. Read the excerpts I provided again (especially the bolded parts). You should properly understand your Calvinist brethren just as we Catholics should. It will do no good to either accept a doctrine that isn't really the true doctrine in consideration, or to war against a straw man. Things are what they are.
Nick,
And I went on to make the point that even St. Paul wasn't pure, either. Romans 7 makes that abundantly clear. And he was referring to his present state when he wrote that, not to his Christian-killing days (some Protestants make out that the "old man" referred to by Paul is his former unregenerate self). So it involves a double denial:
1) Good acts aren't good when unbelievers do them.
2) Christians always do things with the purest of motives, so that they are praiseworthy as morally perfect acts under God.
If you press the classical Protestant on this n the obvious falsity of #2, you'll eventually be led into the claptrap of imputed justification, and the "snow on a dunghill" image, etc., which is yet another falsehood. There is a true limited sense of imputed justification that even a Catholic can accept, but the universality of the application (just as in Total Depravity) is the lie.
Protestantism (where it errs) is often about absurd extremes and extreme "either/or" false dichotomies. One can't fail to be stricken by this fact, the more one studies it.
Robert (re:4/18/07-3:11):
Until then we are - to use Tyndale's metaphor - like a poisonous snake. We may strike, or we may not strike, but either way it's our nature to strike, and we have poison in us that we can't get out of us.
-----
The grave error that this understanding brings out can be described in the following example:
Lets say there is a Christian and a non-Christian who both go out and murder someone. According to your logic, the Christian didnt technically do anything evil while the non-Christian was only doing what his nature allowed.
See how poisonous Total Depravity is that it leads to those "logical" conclusions?
Robert:
The doctrines of grace are hard doctrine to accept. Our 'old man' within us will do anything to avoid accepting such hard truths of our condition.
----
No offense, but I would interpret what you said as more of an excuse to continue believing what a normal conscience would describe as an abominable and unBibilcal theology, rather than admit it you act as if this is simply a "difficult teaching". Rather than really think about it, you fall back on the "difficult teaching" excuse which many Calvinists I encounter claim.
D. Armstrong,
When you mentioned "doublethink" the other day on an article the first thing that came to mind was Luther's "simul iustus et peccator" which for those who dont know means "at the same time righteous and a sinner"
Its twisted logic like this which go along with teachings like Total Depravity.
Dave,
As I understand it, Calvin didn't say unregenerate man is totally depraved, he said man apart from God is totally depraved. If I'm right on this, then what I typed earlier makes perfect sense; because even the unsaved aren't totally apart from God, since they receive His common grace.
If what you claim about what Calvin meant, "Total Depravity, on the other hand, says that an unregenerated man can do no good thing, period." then I'll look at it more. I'll check Calvin's view tonight or tomorrow and comment then, Lord willing.
As always, I enjoy our conversations, and thanks for hosting this site and welcoming the likes of Grubb.
.
Dave in the beginning of this thread claimed that Calvinists were trying to get away from Calvin on this doctrine, so I referenced where in the Institutes he could read Calvin himself. Dave then went quiet on that and began listing excerpts from Pink and others suggesting Calvinists were the ones Calvin might want to distance himself from (that he was listing excerpts that merely showed man was too depraved to choose God on their own if just part of Dave's fundamental and at this point intentionally misunderstanding of the doctrine).
Go to a good systematic theology (use Berkhof for instance) and get yourself a basic working definition of the biblical doctrine of total depravity. You currently don't have that basic definition down.
If you wouldnt have brought those quotes to our attention we (at least I) wouldnt have known just how bad and despicable the situation really was. I guarantee if the majority of Protestants knew these "details" from the mouths of their leaders they would cease to be Protestant.
The problem with finding bad things in protestantism is that it does not tend to drive people the the Catholic church. Mostly they tend to simply find another protestant leader. Or they just choose to disbelieve some of their church's teaching. They still tend to stay in the protestant mindset of private judgment. It is very hard to get somebody to step back and see something deeply wrong with ALL protestant thinking.
David P said, Wow, Ben. "...like that first Protestant (Satan)...". Rather than being offended I laughed out loud at that quip.
David, the comment about the devil being the “first protestant” (forget where I first read it) really wasn’t meant to offend. It was merely a way of stating that Satan’s rebellion against the infinitely perfect and holy will of his Creator was the first “protest.” And yes the phrase does sound, oddly enough, a bit funny. I’m glad you were only amused by it and not offended.
And now to respond to Dave’s comment with something that probably will offend.
Dave wrote: Who is saying that Calvin had "bad character and loose morals", and what evidence does he produce for this claim? I would take broad accusations like that with a huge grain of salt.
Dave, I’ve seen this kind of charge leveled at Calvin before. For Calvin’s sake I hope they’re not true. And for our sake, I hope they do not turn out to be a “pack of Catholic lies” But just where the truth is in this I don’t know. Maybe you could comment on the following:
What are we to Think of John Calvin? Rev . Fr. Philippe Marcille
“In 1532, at the College of France, he was still Catholic. By the end of 1533, he had suddenly turned Protestant, sold his benefices, and begun the life of an itinerant preacher. What happened?
Protestant hagiography has sought to explain it by edifying conversations in his room that would have taken place between Calvin and a Protestant cousin. Recent studies, however, have shown that the two were hundreds of miles apart at the time. A key, though, was left in part by Calvin himself:
Each and every time I entered within myself, a horror so great came over me that neither purifications nor satisfactions could have effaced it. The more I considered myself the more my conscience was pricked with sharp darts, so much so that only one consolation remained, and that was to deceive myself by forgetting about myself.... bewildered by the misery into which I had fallen, and even more so by the knowledge of how close I was to eternal death (Letter to Sadolet).” What are to think about of John Calvin?
It is only fair to wonder what could be the nature of such a burning self-reproach. There is one answer, based upon serious evidence, one that has always been passionately denied by the Protestants. In 1551, a Catholic controversialist revealed that the archives of the city of Noyon, Calvin's birth place, contain the record of a condemnation against Calvin, at age 18, for sodomy. He had by then already received the tonsure. His parents obtained clemency from the bishop, so that instead of being condemned to death as the law demanded, he was branded as a sign of infamy. The Catholic controversialist presented the evidence signed by all the eminent personages of the city.
...continued.
The English scholar Stapleton went there to examine the archives during Calvin's lifetime, and vouched for the fact. The contemporary German Lutherans spoke of it as an established fact (Schlusselburg, Théologie calvinienne).
Another reference from: The History of the Protestant Reformation, vol. 1 by Martin Spalding.
Spalding says,
“The partisans of Calvin have attempted, and for his credit I wish they had succeeded in their attempt, to rescue his memory from the crime and disgrace of having the mark of infamy branded on his shoulder. ‘What must pass as indisputable proof of the crimes imputed to Calvin, is that, after the accusation had been prepared against him, the church of Geneva, not only did not show the contrary, but did not even contradict the information, which Berthelier, commissioned by the persons of the same town, gave at Noyon, and was drawn up with all the accustomed forms of the law. And in the same information, we see that this heresiarch, having been convicted of an abominable sin, which as always punished by fire, the punishment that he deserved was, at the intercession of his bishop, mitigated into that of the fleur-de-lis…. Add to this, that Bolesque, having given the same information, Berthelier, who was still living in the same time as Bolesque, did not contradict it, as, undoubtedly he would have done, had he been able to do so, without going against the conviction of his conscience, and opposing the public belief. Thus the silence both of the whole town interested in the affair and also of his secretary, is, on this occasion, an
infallible proof of the disorders imputed to Calvin.’ They were at that time so uncontested, that a Catholic writer, speaking of the scandalous life of Calvin, advances as a fact well known in England, that, "the leader of the Calvinists had been branded with the fleur-de-lis, and had fled from his native town; and that his antagonist Wittaker, acknowledging the fact, merely replied by the following shameful comparison: Calvin has been stigmatized, so has St. Paul, so have others also."* I find also that the grave and learned Doctor Stapleton,f who had every opportunity of gaining information on this subject, having spent his life in the neighborhood of Noyon,
speaks of this adventure of Calvin s in the terms of one who was certain of the fact. (Latin text follows). Pp.469-70.
Spalding next takes Theodore Beza to the woodshed:
“Let us now pass on to Calvin s celebrated biographer. The Lutherans shall teach us in what esteem and value we are to hold him: ‘ Who will not be astonished (says Heshusius) at the incredible impudence of this monster, whose filthy and scandalous life is known throughout France, by his more than cynical epigrams.” P. 471.
OUCH!
For cross-reference, here is “snippet view” view from Google.
... to cloak the shame and infamy of the Reform,
continued...
.. to cloak the shame and infamy of the Reform, I shall translate it. ...
that John " Calvin, convicted of sodomy, and branded on the " back only with a
http://books.google.com/books?vi...back+%22&
pgis=1
These are pretty serious charges Dave. What do you think, are these sources are at all reliable?
I certainly don’t want to unjustly accuse the reformers of crimes [especially Sodomy!], which they never committed! They have enough provable mischief to keep everyone busy. But even if they didn’t, it would still be unconscionable to descend to the level of bearing false witness in order to try to discredit them.
I should note however that since these charges have now been made, I do think they should be more fully brought into the light of day. Perhaps then it will be possible to positively, once and for all, prove or refute them.
When I wrote above "And for our sake, I hope they do not turn out to be a 'pack of Catholic lies'" what I meant to say was "I hope they do not turn out to be a DELIBERATE pack of Catholic lies." In other words, that such charges were made based on the honest belief that those making them were absolutely trustworthy and the facts were true and correct.
Ben!!!!! I don't know the first source. It could be some goofy "traditionalist". They love to "find" spectacular dirt on Protestants (and popes as well).
Yes, sure enough: my suspicion was dramatically confirmed. This priest has written at least two articles for what appears to be an SSPX magazine (Lfebvrite schismatics): The Angelus:
http://www.angelusonline.org/
That's quite sufficient in my mind to totally discredit the man as any sort of credible expert on anything to do with the Church, let alone writing about the Protestant founders.
I found his name: "ABBOT PHILIPPE MARCILLE FSSPX"
FFSPX stands for "Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X" See:
http://www.fsspx.org/
Abp. Spalding is an old source. Catholic writing on Protestants was quite biased for a long time. A lot of the more negative assertions have been discarded with more objective scholarship. Abp. Spalding was not a professional historian:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
14208a.htm
Unless this can be backed up by someone of impeccable historiographical credentials, I wouldn't accept it as factual at all, let alone spread it around.
Now, of course, you have me curious (having never heard this before), and I will look to see what I can find, but it strikes me as the kind of sensationalistic charge that someone would drum up if they wanted to utterly discredit someone.
Now I don't know who would have started it (if it is untrue), but it likely began during Calvin's lifetime.
Hi Robert,
Dave in the beginning of this thread claimed that Calvinists were trying to get away from Calvin on this doctrine,
I did? For the life of me, I don't know what you are talking about. I did a search for where I even mentioned Calvin himself. All I found was an instance where I expressly stated the contrary of your accusation:
Q: As for the TOTAL depravity of man, does it really matter?
A (me): It sure did to Luther and Calvin, and Calvinists today.
so I referenced where in the Institutes he could read Calvin himself. Dave then went quiet on that and began listing excerpts from Pink and others
This is interesting, too. I did find that this at least exists in the above thread. You wrote:
Read Calvin's Institutes, since you quoted him, at book 2, chapter 2, sections 12 through 17. There are no short sound bites to lift, but you can see he covered this rather thoroughly.
It would be difficult for me to "go quiet" on this and then begin listing excerpts from others, when the record shows that I listed the excerpts at 5:34 PM on 4-17-07, whereas you made this comment on that day, over three hours later: at 8:51 PM. So what was I supposed to do: predict the future, read your mind, and then "go silent"? A little bit of Middle Knowledge on my part?
As for my excerpts, they were drawn right off of the Calvinist page Monergism.com:
http://www.monergism.com/
Search on "Total Depravity":
http://www.monergism.com/directo...depravity&
B1=Go
Is that a "liberal" source and not really Calvinist?
suggesting Calvinists were the ones Calvin might want to distance himself from (that he was listing excerpts that merely showed man was too depraved to choose God on their own
I showed much more than that. Next time trouble yourself to actually read that which you comment upon. It works much better.
if just part of Dave's fundamental and at this point intentionally misunderstanding of the doctrine).
It would seem that you are the one misunderstanding, not me. But of course I don't make the charge that it is intentional, as you do.
Go to a good systematic theology (use Berkhof for instance) and get yourself a basic working definition of the biblical doctrine of total depravity. You currently don't have that basic definition down.
I see. so you are saying that none of the following sources can be trusted for a proper definition of Total Depravity?: Martin Luther, R.C. Sproul, Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, Arthur Pink, Loraine Boettner, and John Piper?
If so, then our conversation is over. It should be already, anyway, because you have accused me of deliberate deceit, and that generally makes any further constructive discussion impossible.
But I'm delighted to take up Robert's suggestion to check out what Old Man Calvin wrote about Total Depravity. It only reinforces my existing assertions quite spectacularly and decisively:
Let's start at Book II, Chapter I, section 8, from one of the online editions:
http://www.reformed.org/master/i...oks/institutes/
For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.
(Inst., II, I, 8 )
Hence it follows, that that part in which the dignity and excellence of the soul are most conspicuous, has not only been wounded, but so corrupted, that mere cure is not sufficient. There must be a new nature. How far sin has seized both on the mind and heart, we shall shortly see. Here I only wished briefly to observe, that the whole man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is so deluged, as it were, that no part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which proceeds from him is imputed as sin.
(II, I, 9)
All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration.
(II, II, 6)
[This absolutely clinches what I have been saying: what this doctrine entails: Grubb says (that even in the Calvinist system) the unregenerate man receives common grace by which he can do good things. Calvin completely denies this. One has to have grace to do good works (Catholics fully agree). But Calvin departs from received orthodoxy by asserting that this grace is only available to the regenerate elect.
The logic is inescapable; therefore, the unregenerate man cannot perform a single truly good work, because he receives no grace to do so -- precisely as I have been saying. So I have not misrepresented anything. How I have described Total Depravity is precisely Calvin's own teaching, and that of his followers that I have also cited. They haven't distorted his teaching on this, either]
I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to the hope of eternal salvation. Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the kingdom of God, so that all things which pertain to the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he recover them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbour, the study of righteousness and holiness. All these, when restored to us by Christ, are to be regarded as adventitious and above nature. If so, we infer that they were previously abolished. On the other hand, soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time, withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of natural gifts. For although there is still some residue of intelligence and judgement as well as will, we cannot call a mind sound and entire which is both weak and immersed in darkness. As to the will, its depravity is but too well known.
(Inst., II, II, 12)
[This easily explains why the anti-Catholic Calvinist is so quick to charge deliberate deceit. Robert above has used the playbook perfectly in making the false charge against me. James White does the same. For him, since he is so sure I am unregenerate, it follows that I cannot possibly have a sound mind or honesty.
Indeed, I can do no good thing at all. So he questions my motivation and intentions at every turn (me being utterly evil and unable to not be evil). I can't understand the things of God at all and must lie about it and have nefarious motives. It cannot be otherwise in the Calvinist system. This is why many of them (consistent to the system) absolutely despise Catholics and any non-Calvinist. You see how Arminians are often treated by them, too, because they deny these Calvinist distinctives, and are thus seen as little better than lowly "Romanists". Truly understanding a doctrine like Total Depravity makes so many things clear regarding how the Calvinist thinks and acts towards others who differ]
Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.
In like manner, the will, because inseparable from the nature of man, did not perish, but was so enslaved by depraved lusts as to be incapable of one righteous desire. The definition now given is complete, but there are several points which require to be explained.
(II, II, 12)
15. Science as God's gift
Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the Giver. How, then, can we deny that truth must have beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers, in their exquisite researches and skilful description of nature, were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who drew up rules for discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the medical art, expended their industry in our behalf were only raving? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing it to the hand of God? Far from us be such ingratitude; an ingratitude not chargeable even on heathen poets, who acknowledged that philosophy and laws, and all useful arts were the inventions of the gods. Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the Scriptures term carnal, are so acute and clear-sighted in the investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature, notwithstanding of its having been despoiled of the true good.
(II, II, 15)
16. Human competence in art and science also derives from the Spirit of God
Moreover, let us not forget that there are most excellent blessings which the Divine Spirit dispenses to whom he will for the common benefit of mankind. For if the skill and knowledge required for the construction of the Tabernacle behaved to be imparted to Bezaleel and Aholiab, by the Spirit of God, (Exod. 31: 2; 35: 30,) it is not strange that the knowledge of those things which are of the highest excellence in human life is said to be communicated to us by the Spirit. Nor is there any ground for asking what concourse the Spirit can have with the ungodly, who are altogether alienated from God? For what is said as to the Spirit dwelling in believers only, is to be understood of the Spirit of holiness by which we are consecrated to God as temples. Notwithstanding of this, He fills, moves, and invigorates all things by the virtue of the Spirit, and that according to the peculiar nature which each class of beings has received by the Law of Creation. But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offered to us, we be justly punished for our sloth. Lest any one, however, should imagine a man to be very happy merely because, with reference to the elements of this world, he has been endued with great talents for the investigation of truth, we ought to add, that the whole power of intellect thus bestowed is, in the sight of God, fleeting and vain whenever it is not based on a solid foundation of truth. Augustine, (supra, sec. 4 and 12,) to whom, as we have observed, the Master of Sentences, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) and the Schoolmen, are forced to subscribe, says most correctly that as the gratuitous gifts bestowed on man were withdrawn, so the natural gifts which remained were corrupted after the fall. Not that they can be polluted in themselves in so far as they proceed from God, but that they have ceased to be pure to polluted man, lest he should by their means obtain any praise.
(II, II, 16)
[Calvin appears to distinguish between "common blessings" from the Holy Spirit and that grace which only the regenerate receive, as he stated in II, II, 6]
17. Summary of 12-16
The sum of the whole is this: From a general survey of the human race, it appears that one of the essential properties of our nature is reason, which distinguishes us from the lower animals, just as these by means of sense are distinguished from inanimate objects. For although some individuals are born without reason, that defect does not impair the general kindness of God, but rather serves to remind us, that whatever we retain ought justly to be ascribed to the Divine indulgence. Had God not so spared us, our revolt would have carried along with it the entire destruction of nature. In that some excel in acuteness, and some in judgement, while others have greater readiness in learning some peculiar art, God, by this variety commends his favour toward us, lest any one should presume to arrogate to himself that which flows from His mere liberality. For whence is it that one is more excellent than another, but that in a common nature the grace of God is specially displayed in passing by many and thus proclaiming that it is under obligation to none. We may add, that each individual is brought under particular influences according to his calling. Many examples of this occur in the Book of Judges, in which the Spirit of the Lord is said to have come upon those whom he called to govern his people, (Judges 6: 34.) In short, in every distinguished act there is a special inspiration. Thus it is said of Saul, that "there went with him a band of men whose hearts the Lord had touched," (1 Sam. 10: 26.) And when his inauguration to the kingdom is foretold, Samuel thus addresses him, "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man," (1 Sam. 10: 6.) This extends to the whole course of government, as it is afterwards said of David, "The Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward," (1 Sam. 16: 13.) The same thing is elsewhere said with reference to particular movements. Nay, even in Homer, men are said to excel in genius, not only according as Jupiter has distributed to each, but according as he leads them day by day, "hoion ep hemas ageisi". And certainly experience shows when those who were most skilful and ingenious stand stupefied, that the minds of men are entirely under the control of God, who rules them every moment. Hence it is said, that "He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way," (Job 12:24; Ps. 107: 40.) Still, in this diversity we can trace some remains of the divine image distinguishing the whole human race from other creatures.
(II, II, 17)
[This is good. Calvin seems to give back with one hand what he took away with the other. He is trying hard to go as far as he can go in acknowledging the obvious presence of much good among pagans, but his system will only go so far without breaking. But he starts talking again of "Depravity Proper" in the next
. . . section]
Their discernment was not such as to direct them to the truth, far less to enable them to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered traveller, who sees the flash of lightning glance far and wide for a moment, and then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the right path. Besides, how many monstrous falsehoods intermingle with those minute particles of truth scattered up and down in their writings as if by chance. In short, not one of them even made the least approach to that assurance of the divine favour, without which the mind of man must ever remain a mere chaos of confusion. To the great truths, What God is in himself, and what he is in relation to us, human reason makes not the least approach. (See Book 3 c. 2 sec. 14, 15, 16.)
(II, II, 18 )
Lest any doubt should be entertained as to this, we must attend to the double misnomer. For this appetite is not properly a movement of the will, but natural inclination; and this good is not one of virtue or righteousness, but of condition, viz., that the individual may feel comfortable. In fine, how much soever man may desire to obtain what is good, he does not follow it. There is no man who would not be pleased with eternal blessedness; and yet, without the impulse of the Spirit, no man aspires to it. Since, then, the natural desire of happiness in man no more proves the freedom of the will, than the tendency in metals and stones to attain the perfection of their nature, let us consider, in other respects, whether the will is so utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evil, or whether it retains some portion uninjured, and productive of good desires.
(II, II, 26)
27. Our will cannot long for the good without the Holy Spirit
Those who ascribe our willing effectually, to the primary grace of God (supra, sect. 6,) seem conversely to insinuate that the soul has in itself a power of aspiring to good, though a power too feeble to rise to solid affection or active endeavour. There is no doubt that this opinion, adopted from Origin and certain of the ancient Fathers, has been generally embraced by the schoolmen, who are wont to apply to man in his natural state (in puris naturalibus, as they express it) the following description of the apostle: - "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." "To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not," (Rom. 7: 15, 18.) But, in this way, the whole scope of Paul's discourse is inverted. He is speaking of the Christian struggle, (touched on more briefly in the Epistle to the Galatians,) which believers constantly experience from the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. But the Spirit is not from nature, but from regeneration. That the apostle is speaking of the regenerate is apparent from this, that after saying, "in me dwells no good thing," he immediately adds the explanation, "in my flesh." Accordingly, he declares, "It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." What is the meaning of the correction, "in me, (that is, in my flesh?") It is just as if he had spoken in this way, No good thing dwells in me, of myself, for in my flesh nothing good can be found. Hence follows the species of excuse, It is not I myself that do evil, but sin that dwelleth in me. This applies to none but the regenerate, who, with the leading powers of the soul, tend towards what is good. The whole is made plain by the conclusion, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind," (Rom. 7: 22, 23.) Who has this struggle in himself, save those who, regenerated by the Spirit of God, bear about with them the remains of the flesh? Accordingly, Augustine, who had at one time thought that the discourse related to the natural man, (August. ad Bonifac. lib. 1 c. 10,) afterwards retracted his exposition as unsound and inconsistent. And, indeed if we admit that men, without grace, have any motions to good, however feeble, what answer shall we give to the apostles who declares that "we are incapable of thinking a good thought?" (2 Cor. 3: 6.) What answer shall we give to the Lord, who declares, by Moses, that "every imagination of man's heart is only evil continually?" (Gen. 8: 21.) Since the blunder has thus arisen from an erroneous view of a single passage, it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it. Let us rather give due weight to our Saviour's words, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," (John 8: 34.) We are all sinners by nature, therefore we are held under the yoke of sin. But if the whole man
(cont.)
. . . is subject to the dominion of sin, surely the will, which is its principal seat, must be bound with the closest chains. And, indeed, if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not have said that "it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do," (Philip. 2: 13.) Away, then, with all the absurd trifling which many have indulged in with regard to preparation. Although believers sometimes ask to have their heart trained to the obedience of the divine law, as David does in several passages, (Ps. 51: 12,) it is to be observed, that even this longing in prayer is from God. This is apparent from the language used. When he prays, "Create in me a clean heart," he certainly does not attribute the beginning of the creation to himself. Let us therefore rather adopt the sentiment of Augustine, "God will prevent you in all things, but do you sometimes prevent his anger. How? Confess that you have all these things from God, that all the good you have is from him, all the evil from yourself," (August. De Verbis Apost. Serm. 10.) Shortly after he says "Of our own we have nothing but sin."
(II, II, 27)
so a soul, while teeming with such seeds of vice, cannot be called sound. This similitude, however, does not apply throughout. In a body however morbid the functions of life are performed; but the soul, when plunged into that deadly abyss, not only labours under vice, but is altogether devoid of good.
(II, III, 2)
Here, again we are met with a question very much the same as that which was previously solved. In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature. The value which virtues of this kind have in the sight of God will be considered more fully when we treat of the merit of works. Meanwhile however, it will be proper to consider it in this place also, in so far as necessary for the exposition of the subject in hand. Such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honourably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. . . . Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure.
(II, III, 3)
Still, the surest and easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the other. When he was pleased to set Saul over the kingdom, he made him as it were a new man. This is the thing meant by Plato, when, alluding to a passage in the Iliad, he says, that the children of kings are distinguished at their birth by some special qualities - God, in kindness to the human race, often giving a spirit of heroism to those whom he destines for empire. In this way, the great leaders celebrated in history were formed. The same judgement must be given in the case of private individuals. But as those endued with the greatest talents were always impelled by the greatest ambitions (a stain which defiles all virtues and makes them lose all favour in the sight of God,) so we cannot set any value on anything that seems praiseworthy in ungodly men. We may add, that the principal part of rectitude is wanting, when there is no zeal for the glory of God, and there is no such zeal in those whom he has not regenerated by his Spirit. Nor is it without good cause said in Isaiah, that on Christ should rest "the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord," (Isa. 11: 2
for by this we are taught that all who are strangers to Christ are destitute of that fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom, (Ps. 111: 10.) The virtues which deceive us by an empty show may have their praise in civil society and the common intercourse of life, but before the judgement-seat of God they will be of no value to establish a claim of righteousness.
(II, III, 4)
[Okay; Calvin again seems to say that God can give some grace to the unregenerate, but appears to deny that the results are "good" in the same sense that acts of the regenerate are good. The man has a very nuanced mind; no one can deny that]
Abp. Spalding is an old source. Catholic writing on Protestants was quite biased for a long time. A lot of the more negative assertions have been discarded with more objective scholarship.
Well then, all I can say Dave is that, biases aside, it's still seem incredible that anyone -particularly a Catholic bishop!!- could have seriously entertain such a charge as Calvin having committed Sodomy, let alone publish such a thing, unless it really had been "backed up by someone of impeccable historiographical credentials." In any event, if I get a chance, I’ll see if I can track down a more solid source. I’m curious myself.
And don’t worry; I won’t be spreading this disgraceful calumny (if that is indeed what it turns out to be) around. It would be nice however, to for sure one way or the other.
And so leaving aside for the moment charges of John Calvin’s alleged sexual depravity, we now return to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress: John Calvin, champion of “total depravity.”
I found some more material on this "Calvin and sodomy" business:
Jerome Bolsec, an ex-Carmelite friar who embraced the reformed faith in Paris, settled in Geneva and served as a physician. He publicly attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished from Geneva, and eventually returned to catholicism. His "revenge was to publish in 1577 a scurrilous biography of Calvin, accusing him among other things of sodomy, which continued to be an arsenal for anti-Calvinist polemics for the next two centuries" (Lindberg, 266).
http://www.enjoyinggodministries...-of-john-
calvin
The article on Bolsec in Wikipedia confirms that his book was not exactly a neutral biographical source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jer...e_Hermes_Bolsec
Actually, it was taken right from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), which states:
"published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519-1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on. They are "Histoire de la view, des moeurs . . . de Jean Calvin"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
02643a.htm
Williston Walker (who was an actual historian at Yale), in his book, John Calvin (New York: Schocken Books, 1906; rep. 1969) writes about Bolsec on pp. 116-119, 315-320. Some excerpts:
"The more specific charge, to which reference is now made, was formulated thirteen years after Calvin's death, by Jerome Hermes Bolsec . . . that Calvin had been convicted of heinous moral turpitude . . . No evidence has ever been produced of the existence of such a document as Bolsec alleges. Jacques Desmay, the earnest Catholic writer who used his stay as Advent and Lenten preacher at Noyon in 1614 and 1615 to learn all he could of Calvin's life there by records and tradition, found nothing of it. An equally determined Roman historian of Noyon, Jacques Le Vasseur, in his Annales of 1633, expressly repudiated it; and careful modern Roman Catholic scholars, such as Kampschulte and Paulus, reject it as "unworthy of serious refutation."
". . . The whole calumny would be unworthy of discussion had the accusation not been repeatedly renewed by a certain class of controversialists during the last century -- in one instance as recently as 1898."
(pp. 116-119)
More from historian Philip Schaff:
"5. Philibert Berthelier (or Bertelier, Bertellier), an unworthy son of the distinguished patriot who, in 1519, had been beheaded for his part in the war of independence, belonged to the most malignant enemies of Calvin. He had gone to Noyon, if we are to believe the assertion of Bolsec, to bring back scandalous reports concerning the early life of the Reformer, which the same Bolsec published thirteen years after Calvin’s death, but without any evidence.768 If the Libertines had been in possession of such information, they would have made use of it. Berthelier is characterized by Beza as "a man of the most consummate impudence" and "guilty of many iniquities." He was excommunicated by the Consistory in 1551 for abusing Calvin, for not going to church, and other offences, and for refusing to make any apology."
768 See above, p. 302 sq. That abominable slander about sodomy, which even Galiffe rejects, Audin and Spalding are not ashamed to repeat.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/his...tory/
8_ch13.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
...v.xiii.xii.html
http://www.godrules.net/library/.../
143calvin4.htm
Notes to a Life of Calvin (I believe, by Theodore Beza), defend Calvin:
The life of Calvin was also charged with immoralities. But this was done principally by the famous Bolsec, of whom Beza gives some account.
After he had been banished from Geneva, through the influence of Calvin and Farel, for sedition and Pelagianism, he wrote a life of Calvin, with a view to destroy the reputation of that great and good man.
The great Dr. Moulin observes, that not one of Calvin’s innumerable enemies ever carped at the purity of his life, but this profligate physician, whom Calvin had procured to be banished from Geneva, for his wickedness and impieties. The reproach of such a man, says Middleton, was an honor to Calvin, and especially upon such an account, for as Milton truly says, “Of some to be dispraised, is no small praise.” The calumnies of Bolsec, however, were reiterated by other enemies, and are sometimes, even in this age, raked from the filth where truth has long since consigned them. “One of the greatest uses,” says Middleton, “which may be drawn from reading, is to learn the weaknesses of the heart of man, and the ill effects of prejudices in points of religion. No less a person than the great cardinal Richelieu, has produced all accusation against Calvin, on the credit of Bertelier, than which none was ever worse contrived, and worse proved; though it has been adopted, and conveyed from book to book. Bertelier pretended, that the republic of Geneva had sent him to Noyon, with orders to make an exact inquiry there into Calvin’s life and character; and that he found Calvin had been convicted of sodomy; but that, at the bishop’s request, the punishment of fire was commuted into that of being branded with the Flower-de-luce. He boasted to have an act, signed by a notary, which certified the truth of the process and condemnation. Bolsec affirms, that he had seen this act; and this is the ground of that horrid accusation. Neither Bertelier, nor Bolsec, are to be credited. If Bertelier’s act had not been suppositious, there would have been at Noyon, authentic and public testimonies of the trial and punishment in question; and they would have been published as soon as the Romish religion began to suffer by Calvin’s means. Bertelier had no party against him in Geneva more inexorable than Calvin, who held him in abhorrence, on account of his vices. Bertelier was accused of sedition and conspiracy against the state and church: but he ran away, and, not appearing to answer for himself, was condemned, as being attainted and convicted of those crimes, to lose his head, by a sentence pronounced against him, the sixth of August, 1555. No envoy or deputy was ever sent from Geneva on public business, who was not in a higher station than that of Bertelier; besides, there were some considerable persons at Noyon, who retired to Geneva, as well as Calvin: by whose means it was very easy to receive all the information which could have been desired,
. . . without going farther.
If what Bertelier said was true, he would have had his paper when he fled from Geneva: but it is plain he had not the commission he boasted of, after that time. But can any one believe, that, before the year 1555, when those who were called heretics durst not show themselves for fear of being burnt, a deputy from Geneva should go boldly to Noyon, to inform himself of Calvin’s life? Who will believeth that if Betrelier had an authentic act of Calvin’s infamy in 1554, he would have kept it so close, that the public should have no knowledge of it before 1557? Was it not a piece which the clergy of France would have bought for its weight in gold? ‘But why (says Bayle), do I lose time in confuting such a ridiculous romance? Nothing surprises me more than to see so great a person as cardinal de Richelieu, depend on this piece of Bertelier; and allege as his principal reason that the republic of Geneva did not undertake to show the falsehood of this piece.’ The truth is, this cardinal made all imaginable inquiry into the pretended proceedings against Calvin at Noyon, and that he discovered nothing; yet he maintained the affirmative on the credit of Jerom Bolsec, whose testimony is of no weight in things which are laid to Calvin’s charge. Bolsec would have been altogether buried in oblivion, if he had not been taken notice of by the monks and missionaries for writing some satirical books against the Reformation. He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic. He was also banished from Bern: after which he went to France, where he assisted in persecuting the Protestants, an even prostituted his wife to the canons of Autun. He was an infamous man, who forsook his order, had been banished thrice, and changed his religion four times; and who, after having aspersed the dead and the living, died in despair.
Varillas thought Bolsec a discredited author: Maimbourg rejected the infamy that was thrown upon Calvin: and Florimond de Remond owns, they have defamed him horribly. Papyrius Masso spoke very ill of Calvin, but would not venture to mention the story of the Flower-de-luce: and he called those, mean wretched scribblers, who reproached that minister with lewdness. It is not strange that cardinal de Richelieu, in one of the best books of controversy that has been published on the part of the church of Rome, should be less scrupulous and nice than Remond, Masso, and Romuald; and that he should give out, as a true matter of fact, the story of Bolsec, which began then to be laid aside by the missionaries? Richelieu intended to have reconciled both religions in France, but was prevented by death; and there was not one story which people did not believe, when it defamed him or cardinal Mazarin.”
http://www.godrules.net/library/.../
143calvin4.htm
As one would expect, the Catholics who are spreading this baseless slander around are "traditionalists":
John Chance: Catholic Resistence
http://
catholicresistence.blogsp...01_archive.html
Robert Sungenis: Catholic Apologetics International
Question 45: Calvin's Sodomy?
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2...m#Question%
2045
This kind of undocumented sensationalistic slander only makes Catholics look as ridiculous as Jack Chick. That's why I was happy to refute it as soon as I heard about it. Everything I suspected about it turned out to be true:
1) Spread by Catholic "traditionalists."
2) No reputable historians back it up.
3) Initially promulgated by a personal enemy of Calvin, shortly after his death.
4) Used for controversialist purposes and insufficiently documented.
C'mon, Ben. Don't let your zeal for the Catholic Church overtake your common sense and fairness and (hopefully) desire to not misrepresent your theological opponents.
Dave, first let me say you did great job of getting to the truth of this matter. You’ve convinced me that there is nothing to this old and unfounded slander against Calvin.
No doubt had the lives of some of the reformers been less scandalous to begin with, rumors of these kinds would never have gained such easy acceptance, especially among those who should know better (Sungenis et al).
That said, I still believe that the lives and characters of important historical figures, be they Catholic, Protestant or whatever, are legitimate areas of discussion and investigation. Especially since belief and behavior generally go hand in hand.
Finally, please allow me to allay any concerns you might have about my desire or intention to “misrepresent” either the lives or characters of the reformers; I can assure you I have neither. Character assassination is a thing utterly repellent to my very nature.
And again, congratulations on a job well done.
Dave,
Thanks for getting to the truth about Calvin's character regarding sodomy.
Thanks also for the novel I have to confess I only read half and skimmed the other half. My programming job requires my attention. But from what I read it sounds as though Piper succinctly stated in his paper what Calvin took volumes to say: That even though God gives unsaved people common grace -- thereby allowing them to do things that could be good in God's eyes if done with a right heart -- He still considers them as evil, because they are done for reasons other than to glorify God.
So if a fireman saves someone's life for God's glory, it's good; but if he saves someone for his own glory, it's evil. Motive matters. Praying is a good thing, and God considers it good when saved people pray to Him. But Jesus admonished the Pharisees who prayed to God with haughty hearts. Anything done with selfish or wrong motives would be considered evil to God wouldn't it?
There are unbelievers out there who do far more for their fellow man than I do, and many do it for selfless reasons. We look at that and say it's a good thing, but does God? The greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Mark 12:29b) Anything we do (whether it be our job, leading our family, praying, exercising,...) that isn't intended to glorify God is missing out 100% on the greatest commandment. Will God consider something good if it's completely void of the 1st and foremost commandment he gave man?
I want my daughters to do the right thing, but more importantly I want them to have a right heart. When one hurts the other, we require the offender to apologize. But as a parent I'm sure you've heard the defiant apology that says, "I'm sorry", but the tone indicates that the heart hasn't repented at all. This is an instance of doing the right thing with a wrong heart; and when my daughters do that, I don't consider it good. I consider it rebellious. By God's grace Christians have the capacity to do things with a right heart and a wrong heart; but unbelievers don't. Their heart is never right with God, therefore their motive of glorifying God cannot be right. In that regard wouldn't God consider all their righteous acts as "filthy rags?"
.
So if a fireman saves someone's life for God's glory, it's good; but if he saves someone for his own glory, it's evil. Motive matters.
But see, this is one of the many things that is so ludicrous about this belief. Motives are simply not that easy to characterize. I was reading Calvin, too, where he freely admitted that the regenerate person usually, if not always, has mixed motives, too. But God "overlooks" that because he is in Christ, etc.
So it isn't a matter of the unregenerate person having evil motives and the believer being pure and devoted to God in everything they do. Oftentimes, there is little difference. I've seen plenty of ongoing, deliberate, serious sin among believers and righteous acts and attitudes among nonbelievers.
So, then, Calvinism plays more games (this time in agreement with most other Protestants) by saying that God "imputes" evil to the nonbeliever but righteousness to the believer, thus assuring that the former's acts are "evil" and the latter's "good."
This is moral insanity at worst and word games at best. Things are what they are. If a person saves someone's life that is a heroic, good, righteous act. It doesn't become evil just because of the status of a person vis-a-vis regeneration.
All these errors go hand in hand. This extreme view originally came from the medieval nominalists. You've been sold a bill of goods, Grubb. I'm hoping that the more you read the Bible without the lens and blinders of this absurd theology superimposed onto it, that you'll see that the Catholic position on this makes far more sense: biblical and otherwise.
Dave,
Ironically, I was reading the Bible without these "blinders" at all, as I've never given "total depravity" much thought. It wasn't until we discussed it here that I started thinking about it.
Are you as pleased with your children when they apologize without being one bit repentant as you are when they apologize with a genuinely repentant heart? Surely not! Motives matter. You may say, "Motives are simply not that easy to characterize", and that's true for man. But God discerns every little motive within each of us for every single act we've ever done effortlessly and perfectly. It IS that easy for Him.
A heroic act isn't always a heroic act. If my commanding officer says, "We need a volunteer to charge the machine gun nest", and I go, it's heroic. If he says, "Grubb, charge the nest, or I'll shoot you right here", and I go, I'm simply trying to save my own skin. I'm not heroic, I'm risking probable death to avoid certain death.
You say, God "imputes" evil to the nonbeliever but righteousness to the believer, thus assuring that the former's acts are "evil" and the latter's "good." Why would that be so hard to believe? Isn't that exactly what Isaiah was addressing when he said, "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;"? (Isa 64:6a) Isaiah saw that even the redeemed weren't honoring God, and that even our good acts are like filthy rags. It takes God to transform our "filthy rags" into glorious, God honoring deeds.
And doesn't God impute forgiveness to believers and damnation to unbelievers? Is that "moral insanity" too? Both the believer and unbeliever deserve hell except for the saving grace of God. Why is it so hard to believe that we both deserve to have our righteous acts called filthy rags except for the saving grace of God? God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Exo 33:19b, Rom 9:18 ) When you say If a person saves someone's life that is a heroic, good, righteous act, it sounds as though you're trying to force God to judge things by man's standards rather than allowing Him to have mercy on whom He will have mercy.
continued.....
....(cont'd)
Conversely, Calvin may have been trying to discern the mind of God in saying not one thing an unbeliever does is good in God's eyes. Right now total depravity makes a little more sense to me than mostly depraved. What would be the reason of God viewing an unbeliever's acts as good? For the believer, it stores up treasure in heaven. Will unbelievers have treasure in heaven? Will there treasure be transferred to hell? In the end, God is God, and (everybody including Calvin and especially Grubb insert your name here) is not. If he chooses to have mercy on the unsaved and view their deeds as good, that's good. If he chooses not to, that's good too.
Which did you say you thought was the most compelling passage that showed God considered an unbeliever's good deed as good? If it was II Chron, what was your 2nd most compelling one? David did a good job breaking that one down.
.
[God] still considers them as evil, because they are done for reasons other than to glorify God.
But Grubb, how do your know that the reformation itself was not “done for reasons other than to glorify God”? I for one cannot see how God is “glorified” by the existence of as many “sects and beliefs as heads” (“Secten und Glauben als köpfe”), of which Luther himself complained in 1525.
De Wette, vol. 3:61
I believe Christ was making a deliberate connection between glory and unity when he said,
And the glory which thou gavest me I HAVE GIVEN THEM; that THEY may be one, even as WE are one. John 17:22.
Protestantism's constant tearing at Christ’s sacred body is the very antithesis of that SACRED UNITY Christ intended. Surely God is neither honored nor glorified by such perpetual disunity.
Its pretty clear to me that Grub is falling back on the typical fail safe verses that come out as soon as a non-Calvinist starts to make sense.
Grub:Motives Matter
Nick:Sure they matter but to pretend its as clear as black/white is oversimplification. The fact is every act has a mixed degree of motives.
Another glaring problem with your view (Calvinism), which you fail to recognize in your comments here, is that the Christian can only do good and the non-Christian can only do evil. Thus the concept of "motives" doesnt really mean anything.
Grub:A heroic act isn't always a heroic act.
Nick:What you describe was a bogus example of heroism. If its penalty of death then its not heroic. The fireman isnt threatened with death if he decides not to risk his life.
Grub:Isaiah saw that even the redeemed weren't honoring God, and that even our good acts are like filthy rags.
Nick:This Isaiah 64:6 passage is one of the most (if not the most) abused passages of all time. It is the epitome of how poisonous and abominable TD is and what conclusions it results in. Go read verse 5 and you will see that interpretation is not only out of context but badly twisted.
Whats WORSE is that Protestantism with its imputed concept can have the nerve to say stuff like "even the redeemed weren't honoring God, and that even our good acts are like filthy rags"!! This is doublethink to the core because on one hand the claim their works are like filthy rags and on the other they can claim since they are saved their works are good works.
Grub:Both the believer and unbeliever deserve hell except for the saving grace of God.
Nick:The problem is your theology teaches that if the unbeliever and believer both go and murder someone then the believer still doesnt deserve hell and infact his status is unchanged. Thats not justice nor grace.
Grub:it sounds as though you're trying to force God to judge things by man's standards rather than allowing Him to have mercy on whom He will have mercy.
Nick:Another example of twisting passages to say not only what they do not say...BUT the EXACT opposite. Read Ex33:19 in context, take note of verses like 17. Moses knew clearly God's standards and the passage is clear Moses pleased God. The funny thing is it is Catholics who recognize God's standards are clearly laid out in Scripture and these standards include what are in fact universal truths (eg murder is a sin regardless whether a believer or unbeliever commits it).
Grub:What would be the reason of God viewing an unbeliever's acts as good? For the believer, it stores up treasure in heaven. Will unbelievers have treasure in heaven? Will there treasure be transferred to hell?
Nick:Again, you have exposed the flaw of Total Depravity. The unbeliever must be off to hell regardless of what they do while the believer is guaranteed heaven regardless of what they do.
Catholics believe people do good as a sign God is calling them to Him, they are
cont...
... they are in fact acting out of obedience when they do good at the prompting of grace. Your view is flawed on multiple levels. Here are two verses which make no sense when you take on your view:
Eze18:26 "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die."
This verse makes no sense in your theology.
1 Tim 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Here is another powerful verse you have no answer for...why? Because it says there IS something "worse than an unbeliever" yet your theology teaches there is no sin but that of unbelief. This verse teaches a Christian abandoning his family has committed grave (and possibly damnable) sin.
Is Lucifer “totally depraved”? And if so, how does his TD differ from/relate to man’s TD?
Grubb,
If you're so interested in the topic now, then by all means start dealing with my original biblical support one by one, and give what you think are superior alternative explanations. People so often want to launch off into Protestant preaching crusades, but I want to argue BIBLE. Give me your exegesis of the stuff I brought out at the beginning.
Dave, you wrote in your paper:
How fascinating. All of this is about Gentiles who don't even have the law. They haven't heard the gospel at all. The New Testament has not yet been out together. They (obviously) don't yet have the benefit of Romans itself. Paul never says that they have heard the gospel.
This seems to beg the question of just what the “gospel” actually is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Calvinist teaching about total depravity intimately connected with, and dependent on, the truth of Luther's claim about his having "discovered the gospel"?
I suppose. I'm not sure they would argue it like that. But in my example, these people haven't heard the gospel, however it is defined. So if one must literally hear it to be saved, then there are massive problems in this text to be resolved.
But my point is, that the gospel, however defined, HAS to be HEARD! It is not something that can ever be "discovered" as Luther claimed he had done.
Even CHRIST HIMSELF could SPEAK only that which he had HEARD (not "discovered") from his Father (Jn 8:26)! And these words were handed on from the Father to Christ to his apostles to their successors and so on in an UNBROKEN SUCCESSION. This is the biblical patterned which, as far as I can tell, has never been changed or revoked.
Now if even CHRIST HIMSELF and his apostles had to abide by this pattern, a pattern in which the gospel is neither self-taught nor "discovered," how then do our protestant friends exempt themselves from having to do the same? What scriptural precedent do they cite as justification? And if there is none, then surely the very underpinnings of their system, including TD, are FUNDAMENTALLY UNBIBLICAL and must therefore be rejected.
Consider these scriptures:
"I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I DECLARE TO THE WORLD WHAT I HAVE HEARD from him." Joh 8:26
"all that I have HEARD FROM MY FATHER I have made known to you. John 15:15
"and what you have HEARD FROM ME before many witnesses ENTRUST TO FAITHFUL MEN who will be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also. 2 Timothy 2:2.
In each of the above instances, the faith, THE "gospel" is "handed on" in an UNBROKEN LINE OF SUCCESSION. It is not discovered through human efforts such as "bible study" (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al).
I don’t think the reformers could’ve ever said with any degree of honesty, that what they spoke and taught was, as in the case of Christ and his apostles, their successors and all the generations of true Christians before and after them, ONLY that which they had RECEIVED AND HEARD.
Ok, I see what you are saying now. No, they definitely can't do that; hence they rejected apostolic succession. They could only appeal back to a mythical proto-Protestant patristic period. They use massive revisionist history and anachronism towards that end.
It's one of my emphases in apologetics. I love to discuss the Fathers and what they believed or didn't believe.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave, When we first practice to deceive.
So these folks appeal to "a mythical proto-Protestant patristic period" and even resort to using "massive revisionist history?" Indeed! Why that sounds to me like they're just a might bit dishonest! Heck, for all I know, maybe even "totally depraved!" _/_
Wow again. What reading to catch up on when gone bit.
Dave, you said to Grubb " but I want to argue BIBLE. Give me your exegesis of the stuff I brought out at the beginning." I tried to do that about halfway back by bringing up 2 Chronicles 19 & 20 and I haven't noticed that you had anything to say about my point yet.
Nick posted:
"Grub:it sounds as though you're trying to force God to judge things by man's standards rather than allowing Him to have mercy on whom He will have mercy.
Nick:Another example of twisting passages to say not only what they do not say...BUT the EXACT opposite"
Exactly the opposite of what, Nick? Passages like Romans 9:17&18 which prove Grubb's very point?
Romans 9:17&18: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."
Or did I "prooftext" and take this out of context. Seems pretty clear from a simple reading.
Nick,
For the record, there are 2 'b's in Grubb.
The fact is every act has a mixed degree of motives.
Many acts do, but God has no problem whatsoever in discerning every single motive for every single act. If you disagree with that, you're limiting God's omniscience and omnipotence in a way that I'm sure will get you excommunicated. If you agree with it, you shouldn't have a problem with motives mattering.
Grubb:A heroic act isn't always a heroic act.
Nick:What you describe was a bogus example of heroism. If its penalty of death then its not heroic. The fireman isnt threatened with death if he decides not to risk his life.
It wasn't bogus at all. Dave made the argument that a heroic act is a heroic act regardless of motives, and I gave a very realistic example of the same act being heroic in one instance and non-heroic in another. Motives matter.
Grubb:Isaiah saw that even the redeemed weren't honoring God, and that even our good acts are like filthy rags.
Nick:This Isaiah 64:6 passage is one of the most (if not the most) abused passages of all time. ... Go read verse 5 and you will see that interpretation is not only out of context but badly twisted. Whats WORSE is that Protestantism with its imputed concept can have the nerve to say stuff like "even the redeemed weren't honoring God, and that even our good acts are like filthy rags"!! This is doublethink to the core because on one hand the claim their works are like filthy rags and on the other they can claim since they are saved their works are good works.
Which part of my interpretation are you railing against? That they were redeemed, or that their "righteous acts" were considered as filthy rags? Surely you're not suggesting Isaiah and the entire nation of Israel were unredeemed. I don't see how you can deny all their/our righteous acts were as filthy rags. Isaiah said it, not Grubb! Also, you probably shouldn't declare it impossible for God to take what is unclean (our filthy rags) and make it clean (God honoring acts). Here's verse 5 (believe it or not, I had already read it before you suggested/ordered me to go read it) "You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved?" Why does he ask, "How then can we be saved?" He asks, because he knows that no one, not even the prophet Isaiah, is good enough to earn God's salvation. Dave has gone to great lengths to get PTs (protestants) to believe the RCC doesn't teach salvation by works, and you're going to equal lengths to prove it does. I thought RCs were unified.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
Grubb:Both the believer and unbeliever deserve hell except for the saving grace of God.
Nick:The problem is your theology teaches that if the unbeliever and believer both go and murder someone then the believer still doesnt deserve hell and infact his status is unchanged. Thats not justice nor grace.
If Dave or any RC said "Both the believer and unbeliever deserve hell except for the saving grace of God", you'd be 100% on board with them. You don't have to disagree with EVERYTHING I say. This is one of the core beliefs of Christianity. Do you really have a problem with it or just that Grubb said it? This is one of the areas where RCs & PTs agree...at least most RCs
Nick:Another example of twisting passages to say not only what they do not say...BUT the EXACT opposite. Read Ex33:19 in context, take note of verses like 17. Moses knew clearly God's standards and the passage is clear Moses pleased God. The funny thing is it is Catholics who recognize God's standards are clearly laid out in Scripture and these standards include what are in fact universal truths (eg murder is a sin regardless whether a believer or unbeliever commits it).
So now we have to earn God's mercy and grace? Ask any of your RC apologist friends, "Will God have mercy on whom God will have mercy?", and they'll say, "Yes." Did Job deserve his fate? God said there was none other like him on earth. Picture the most righteous man on earth today being subjected by the devil to the same things Job endured. Why did God withhold his mercy on Job during this time? Was God unjust? If Job obeyed God in everything, why didn't God continue to bless him and protect him from Satan? According to how you interpret Ex 33, Ezekiel 18:26, and 1 Tim 5:8, God should have protected Job, and yet He didn't. I don't deny at times we're rewarded for obedience, but you can't deny that sometimes we're blessed before we're obedient or in the absence of obedience. Is that unjust?
David P did a good job to show that I didn't take it out of context.
Here are two verses which make no sense when you take on your view:
Eze18:26 .... 1 Tim 5:8
What you're suggesting here is works based salvation. Dave vehemently refutes that. None of us are saying a Christian doesn't need to be obedient and do (as best we can) good works. What I am saying is if Isaiah said that the righteous acts of the redeemed Israelites were as filthy rags because they had sinned, how much more filthy would the "righteous" acts of the unredeemed be? Don't you agree?
.
Dave made the argument that a heroic act is a heroic act regardless of motives,
Not quite. I wasn't intending to deny that motives have any relevance at all. What I was arguing was that most acts of human beings have something less than 100% pure motives, and that this is true for Christians as well as non-Christians. Calvin also taught that Christians have mixed motivations much i not all of the time too.
There is such a thing as a non-Christian doing a truly heroic act, and this is self-evident. But total depravity would deny that possibility because it makes all these acts evil (except for a supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit in that once instance, says Calvin).
As for Romans 9, I have dealt with that:
Reply to a Calvinist Critique Concerning the "Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart"
(vs. Colin Smith)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...concerning.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0785980/
#117080
See also the earlier discussion with an atheist:
Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? (Does God Positively Ordain Evil?) (vs. [atheist] "DagoodS")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...t-does-
god.html
Dave,
My bad. I see the difference between what you meant and what I inferred regarding the "righteous act" statement. I trust you can see how I misinterpreted your statement.
I'm still not sold completely one way or the other whether God views what we consider selfless, righteous acts as good. His ways are higher than our ways. Is a selfless, righteous act that's done void of the greatest commandment good in God's eyes?
I may go back and look at your initial analysis, but odds are very good I won't have enough time to answer it point by point. I wish I did.
.
Well, at least you're willing, Grubb. That's far more than I can say for White, Swan, and all these other clowns who are unable and unwilling to reply at all (or with anything remotely approaching adequacy, in some few instances where they muster up a "reply") to anything I write, even if in direct critique of them.
It may be too late to comment on this discussion, but Scott Hahn mentions in his study of Romans, that when Paul said "There is no just man", he was quoting from Psalm 14, and Isaiah 59. In verse 3 of Rom. 14 Paul says, "All alike have gone astray; they have become perverse; there is not one who does good, not even one." But then if you read verse 4, he talks about these evildoers who eat up my people & then talks about God is with the just generation. So the evildoes that Paul is talking about are seperate from the just generation.
If someone has already brought this up, please forgive me, I didn't have time to read all the comments.
Dave, please delete this if you don't think if applies to this discussion.
Mary
Woops! I didn't state the above very well, I should have said that Paul, was quoting from Psalm 14, and that Verses 3 & 4 of that Psalm distinguishes between "evil doers" and the "just generation." God calls the just his people. I hope that is clearer.
Mary
Commenting by HaloScan
