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. Pau