Total Depravity?
Calvinists today are often shocked when they find out that the Arminians actually believe in total depravity. Jacob Arminius never taught that the will is morally free. Check this out.
"That man does not possess saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, 'Without me you can do nothing.'"
Pretty good definition of total depravity, right? It's the 3rd Article of the Remonstrants.
"That man does not possess saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, 'Without me you can do nothing.'"
Pretty good definition of total depravity, right? It's the 3rd Article of the Remonstrants.
posted by Daniel | 10:44 AM
8 Comments:
While I'm not a Calvinist, I tend to think that the mind, the will, and emotions have all been affected by the fall. I tend to think that sin has corrupted the mind's ability to reason correctly. Of course, this has a radical impact on our view of epistemology. The knowledge of the truth cannot be discovered by mere empirical methods. We are not be objective beings. Our own passions and desires are hopeless entangled with our reasoning capacities. I definitely think that God's grace is needed for someone to respond to the gospel. However, I do not think that this grace is irresistible.
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me"...so clear, so irrefutable, so...irresistable. :)
I honestly wonder how you guys can say 'grace is not irresistable' with a straight face. I'm sorry for my candor, for too often us 'calvinsist' are too harsh, firm, unkind, ungraceful, condescending etc when expressing our views. That is not the spirit I intend to express with this comment. But this is definitely worthy of a rebuke here. Grace that tries to save but fails...wow, what does that say about the power of that God you are supposedly placing your faith in? God isnt saving to bring us glory you know, or to make us happy, or to meet our requirments for a 'fair God' (we like our gods to be fair you know), but that is exactly what your theology demands...Are you ever going to realize that its not all about us, but rather about Him?
Philo, thank you for proving my point. I actually have no idea what interpretation of John 6 you hold, as every single one of you seems to hold to something different (read the threads). Doesnt that say something in itself? Yes, it says some are so enslaved to tradition that they will all agree what the text doesnt mean, and do a pretzel like exegesis of whatever floats their boat to determine what they want it to mean -while not caring how wild the interpretations are, cause they all agree on what it doesnt mean so its all good. You guys can all stay buddy-buddy since you all agree us calvinists have it wrong -no matter what kind of ridiculous view each other holds.
My position on John 6 has yet to be refuted in this thread. But I have begun to exegete John 6 on my blog this week, you are wecome to come over and attempt to refute my postion if you like.
You know Daniel, I enjoy reading your blog and I have appreciated your kindness and dialogue. But I'm going to have to stop reading you. My spirit grieves too much at the willful ignorance of "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".
SDG
I don't know if you're still reading here Nathan, but you Calvinists don't agree on everyhting either.
Philo,
When I said you guys disagree I was referring to all the posts on Daniels blog where John 6 was discussed –not just the one under the John 6 heading. Go back and read the archives and you will see several different positions thrown at me –while those who disagree with me refuse to dialogue among themselves about their major differences.
Furthermore, in your previous comments on John 6 you try to bring in the context of John 5, which in no way hurts my argument, but it shows that you didn’t really study the text because it is estimated that John 5 happened 9 months before John 6 (Compare John 5:1 with John 6:4).
In addtion, your comments are in italics:
And it is easy to point out what the text doesn't mean because your interpretation reads eisegetically into the passage completely ignoring the context.
Wow, the ignorance is overwhelming. Lets see what you ‘affirmed’ from the text:
Jesus' opponents could not come to him because of their track record of rejecting his previous offerings of light.
Can you please point out where Jesus explains this ‘track record’? And where Jesus explains that it is because of this the He used such words of 'all', and 'no man'?
Since they did not belong to God, they would not be part of the transfer from God to Jesus (6:37, 39).
Can you please point this out in the text? That is, where Jesus states that the ‘all that the Father gives Me’ is based on something the creature has to perform?
There is no reason to think that this passage teaches that people need some special permission from God in order to come to Christ.
So ‘no man’ in verse 44 and 65 does not entail special permission? Then, that must mean you think that He really meant ‘all men’. Oh wait, that is what you believe! But I am the one accused of reading into the text? At least I don’t change the meaning of words. And how do I know you change the meaning of words? Right here:
The answer to the question to whom does "no one" refer is quite simple: it means no one who has a relationship with the one true God and creator of the universe refrains from coming to Christ.
No one really means everyone. And I’m the one who reads into the text?
All of this goes back to the age old problem: are we going to exegete the text or are we going to spiritualize the text? Are we going to interpret scripture word for word or thought for thought? I think it is obvious where you guys stand.
Nathan,
You write, "When I said you guys disagree I was referring to all the posts on Daniels blog where John 6 was discussed –not just the one under the John 6 heading. Go back and read the archives and you will see several different positions thrown at me –while those who disagree with me refuse to dialogue among themselves about their major differences."
Take that as a compliment. Your position tends to invoke the most strong feelings.
I have said this several times about John 6.
I agree that no one can come to Jesus without the work of the Father in his life. This means that "no one" means "no one." Everyone needs the drawing work of the Father in order to come to Jesus. I have no problem with the term "no one."
You ask,
"Are we going to interpret scripture word for word or thought for thought?"
I would answer both. Words make up thoughts. Words are the means to communicate thoughts. If we interpret word for word, then we should also interpret thought for thought.
God bless
P.S. It's obvious that you have heard at least one of James White's debates on John 6. :) I take that you liked it.
Philo,
You misunderstand me again. Verse 44 says ‘no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’, literally ‘no man is able’. Because of you and Daniel’s view that those given are those who have a good ‘track record’, you essentially change the meaning of ‘no man’ into ‘any man who wants to...he just has to do this first’ –which turns the basis of being drawn or given back onto the creature, ie: free will. That, my friend, is a contradiction of words.
The length between John 5 and 6 is relevant to this discussion because you used stuff from chapter 5 to strengthen your arguments –and those are not the same context.
In addition, I believe the meaning of ‘world’ should be determined by its context. You however, seem to be implying it is the same all across the board. Please then, explain for us John 17:9 and reconcile this view with that verse –so that you may indeed prove your statement that we ‘butcher’ verses.
Post a Comment
<< Home