It's interesting how, without even being spoken, presuppositions can have large ramifications. Let's look at a few examples.
The inerrancy of Scripture is quite a big one. Now, remember, the premise is regarding presuppositions without being spoken, so I'm not going to defend or attack the inerrancy of Scripture. I'm going to assume it (or not). The one that assumes it will read the Bible differently than the one who does not. One will read every word as if it's accurate and, in those cases where there appears to be a contradiction, will work at trying to figure out what is actually intended rather than merely dismissing it because, after all, the Bible is inerrant. The one that assumes it is not may take the Bible seriously, but has no problem with apparent contradictions. These contradictions may be internal -- within the pages of Scripture -- or external. If this guy sees an apparent internal contradiction, it's a simple thing to either reject both of them or to pick the one that is more in line with his beliefs. If he reads something that contradicts what he believes, he has no problem dismissing it because there is no presupposition of inerrancy. And while both will "take the Bible seriously", they are not taking it in the same sense and some sort of common ground becomes impossible. But these two have a hard time sorting out the reason for the failure of common perspective because the presupposition -- the inerrancy of Scripture -- goes unspoken, but touches everything.
Presuppositions on the Nature of Man taints all sorts of perspectives. Is Man basically good or basically bad? If bad, how bad? And there are shades here. The "Calvinist" will say that "There is none who does good; no, not one", that Man is "inclined only to evil continually". The more moderate (read "Arminian" perhaps) will say that Man is basically a sinner, but that whole "no not one" thing is hyperbole. Natural Man does good deeds all the time. And take babies, for instance. They're not "sinners", not "intrinsically bad". They're innocents! Come on, anyone can see that! And, then, of course, there's the more common presupposition of the day: Humans are basically good. They turn bad because of environment and circumstances and other things, but humans are good at their core. I don't think you need much expansion beyond that. Each presupposition regarding the nature of Man will take you down a completely different road. The first requires regeneration before faith. The second places Christ as the Savior of all ... all who are willing. The third potentially removes the need for a Savior at all. Just be good enough and you'll be okay. (Of course, there is another underlying presupposition for that one -- "good enough". Don't even begin to examine that one.) Different roads.
A lot of Christians believe that Man is "Spiritually Dead", but the presupposition of what that means will give them varying directions. One side tends to think of it is something mostly "future tense", that if something isn't done about "it" (whatever "it" really is), it will be bad. Damnation or something, you know? But it isn't something real at the moment. No, no, not quite that. It's just that it isn't something actually dead. "Dead" means inactive, incapable, not living. This "dead" doesn't mean that. Man is a spiritual being as well as a physical being and there's nothing dead about his spirit. So that's not what it means. Of course, the other side would argue that "spiritually dead" means ... dead. In this view, Man's spiritual capacities are short-circuited, he is unable to understand the things of God, and he is spiritually incapable. He operates only in "the Flesh", the biblical euphemism for sinful self, and not in "the spirit" ... because he is spiritually dead. And you can see how this would shade the rest of the conversation. Can Man come to Christ on his own? If the former presupposition, of course! If the latter, "What are you thinking? Of course not!" You can see how this would create all sorts of differences in its ramifications.
One I've seen recently is "the Kingdom of God". We don't discuss it. We assume it. And it turns out our presuppositions become key without ever being examined. One view is that the kingdom of God is certainly future tense. It may be heaven itself. It may be at the end of the events of Revelations. But it's not now. Another view says that it is most certainly here and now, that Christ is reigning, that His kingdom exists around us, and while it may not be as visible as it will be in the future, it is certainly as real. The kingdom of God, in this view, is all that has to do with God. I think those two are quite prevalent views. So, let me lay out a well-known verse. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). I think, without any grand explanation from me, you can see that your presupposition regarding "the kingdom of God" will shape your understanding of this verse. If "the kingdom of God" is future tense, then you understand that "born again" is the prerequisite to ... getting to heaven. If you it is present tense, then obviously "born again" is the prerequisite to "seeing" ... to getting it, to being aware of it, to (in Paul's words) accepting or understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14).
I wonder how often our presuppositions -- unmentioned -- shape our discussions without us even being aware of it. Coming from different origins, we can't figure out why, although we seem to be using the same language, we're not coming to the same conclusions. "We're talking about the same thing. It's plain as day. How can they not see it?" How often do you think it boils down to an underlying definition that remains unspoken or unexamined and we just don't know it? I think it's much more often than we realize.
31 comments:
Stan...
Coming from different origins, we can't figure out why, although we seem to be using the same language, we're not coming to the same conclusions.
Very true. Communication DOES become complicated when using two different definitions for the words being used. But then, this is not an insurmountable problem: Just agree on some definitions, wouldn't you agree?
For instance, if two people are having a discussion about the nature of humanity, one saying that humanity is wholly sinful, even babies and the other not understanding saying, "Babies sin??"
All the first fella has to do is explain, "I don't mean that babies are actively engaging in sinful actions, I mean they have a SINFUL NATURE, a TENDENCY TO SIN," or explain whatever it is he's trying to say. And then the second fella can understand his actual point, and they can discuss the ACTUAL thing the "sinning babies" guy is promoting, rather than what the second guy THOUGHT he meant.
People can work through this, right?
Seems to me that sometimes people are using specialized, non-standard English definitions to common terms and, for communication's sake, they need to go out of their way to explain that they're not using a term in the common English meaning, but some specialized meaning. Once that happens, voila! communication can proceed.
Yes?
I'm curious Stan, do you think the Kingdom of God is future tense or now?
Myself, I think both. Certainly we are living in God's kingdom NOW, we who are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and who are walking in God's ways. And we're living in God's kingdom imperfectly now, as we live INTO God's kingdom wonderfully eventually.
Are you not in the same camp as I am on that point?
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, `Lo, here it is!' or `There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.
~Luke 17
The first problem is that we use the same language and these presuppositions are not spoken. So when I say "Bible" and you say "Bible" we have these terms weighted differently with presuppositions, but we both said the same thing and, after all, we're both using the KJV (or whatever), so we're reading the same Bible, right? We do not examine the differences.
Second, you and I worked the "wholly sinful" question to death and you never understood what I was saying and misrepresented and ridiculed my view on your blog without ever having worked it through, so I'd have to question whether people can work through this.
Of course the Kingdom of God is both now and yet to come. I mean, if His kingdom is forever, then it would be now and it would be into eternity. We do not see it perfectly, nor do we experience it perfectly, but, yes, it is both now and yet to come.
(Of course, on the whole "wholly sinful" thing, I would suspect one presupposition that we don't share is the definition of sin.)
(And, of course, I will not be going into another dialog on the subject with you. Burn me once, shame on you. Not twice.)
Stan...
you never understood what I was saying and misrepresented and ridiculed my view on your blog without ever having worked it through, so I'd have to question whether people can work through this.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I just went back and re-read that blog entry of mine and I don't see it as ridiculing you at all.
First off, I deliberately did not mention your name, so I don't see how it could be suggested that I was ridiculing YOU. I was speaking ABOUT the ideas you represented, not Stan or Stan's character.
Secondly, I freely admitted several times that "it appeared" to be what you were saying and that I was not fully sure of what you were saying since I could not get an answer that I could understand out of you.
Thirdly, you have been asking me not to comment, not fully answering my questions (understandable, given how much I write and a limited amount of free time) and not posting all my comments/questions. Such circumstances make it difficult to have a complete conversation. So I moved it to my blog to ponder aloud your APPARENT position (which, honest to God, I STILL don't fully know - are babies actively committing sins or not?? every time I think I get your position on "utter depravity", you tell me I don't have it...). Moving the questions anonymously to my blog seemed a reasonable and polite thing to do.
Nonetheless, I apologize (again) if it seemed inappropriate to you.
I didn't say you ridiculed me. I said you ridiculed the idea. (I said, as you quoted, that you "ridiculed my view.")
The fact that you could not "get an answer that I could understand" out of me is the reason that I see so little point in repeating the exercise over and over again. Sure, the sheer volume of your comments is daunting, but the fact that I can say "A" and you say, "You mean 'B'?" and I say, "No, A, the letter before B" and you say, "Oh, 'b'" and we never move at all makes it pointless. No matter how many ways I say it, you don't seem to get it. And by "it" I do not mean "A" or "B" or even "wholly sinful", but so many of the points on which we disagree. You argue for communication to overcome misunderstandings and I see no reason to think that communication is working.
Stan,
I'm not online nearly as frequently as is really needed to comment at length. It might be more appropriate to write you an email at some point, where we could have a single-threaded conversation free from third-party distractions and other superfluous irritations.
Until then, it's at least worth pointing out that the distinction you make isn't entirely fair, between your position and the position of those of us who disagree with your interpretation of what "dead" means in Ephesians 2.
"Can Man come to Christ on his own? If the former presupposition, of course!"
No, not exactly. I wouldn't put it this way, and I don't think it's a fair summary.
It's not that man can "come" to Christ, but that man can RESPOND to Christ. And it's not that man does so "on his own," but only that man does so prior to regeneration: God's choosing and God's calling still come first, and all of man's abilities are ultimately gifts of God, including his ability to respond.
And, you write that "dead" means "inactive, incapable, not living."
"In this view [your view, obviously], Man's spiritual capacities are short-circuited, he is unable to understand the things of God, and he is spiritually incapable."
To that I would like to highlight one verse.
Genesis 20:3.
Translations aren't unanimous, but many of the more trustworthy, more literal translations appear to throw a monkeywrench in your approach.
(Quick: list off your top three favorite translations BEFORE looking at that link, and see how they line up.)
Many of the translations read as follows:
"God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, 'Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife.'"
"You are a dead man," PRESENT TENSE.
The next few verses relay how this dead man was clearly able to understand God's message and was even able to respond.
Maybe God regenerated him, implicitly but imperceptibly, between verses 3 and 4. And we can dismiss the passage's relevance by noting the differences: it's Old Testament, in Hebrew, and historical narrative, and so it cannot directly be compared to a theological claim in NT Greek.
And yet: God told the man, "You are dead." If that direct declaration from God Almighty didn't mean that the man was unresponsive and unable to understand, why should we believe that "dead" MUST mean that in a passage where it's even less clear?
From John 1:12 we know that the right to become sons of God is given to those who believe: belief logically comes first, as the privilege of adoption comes second. Unless one insists on the implausible separation of regeneration and adoption -- but how can we be reborn unless we are already in Christ? and how could we be in Christ but NOT be adopted into God's family? -- then the order is clear: faith comes first, then regeneration and adoption.
One shouldn't impose upon Ephesians 2 an understanding that mutilates John 1.
"... I could not get an answer that I could understand out of you."
Wow. The irony here could be fatal.
Stan...
but the fact that I can say "A" and you say, "You mean 'B'?" and I say, "No, A, the letter before B" and you say, "Oh, 'b'" and we never move at all makes it pointless.
To the extent that I have done that, I apologize for any lack of understanding. Since it happens all the time to me, I know it can be hard to try to work around.
It's why I've suggested that we might do better to quit summarizing each other ("we" who have a hard time communicating) and just stick to quotes and clarifications and questions.
Two things, though:
1. I think it is extremely helpful in communication to recognize any misunderstandings we have. A simple, "Oh, my bad, that's what it sounded like to me..." goes a long way.
For instance, my bad for the "ridicule me" thing you mentioned, just a mistake on my part, not an intentional misunderstanding.
And see, communication happens! We learn, we laugh at our mistakes and move on.
2. We DO move forward through these back and forths. That is the point of communication, right?
I get now that you are trying to communicate something other than standard, common English usage of the term "sin" when you are speaking of babies. So by saying, "not 'sin' in THAT sense, Dan," I have learned you don't mean actively intentionally sinning. And you have learned, I imagine, that you and I agree that all of us have a sinful nature, babies included. So, we're not that far apart, we learn, it sounds like to me.
It just seems that you still mean something more than just a sinful nature so we may have room to fully understand one another better yet. Thus, we communicate, we converse. It's not brain surgery, we can do this ("we" being any of us). Seems to me.
Bubba, this is going to sound a lot worse than it is intended. There is no ire, no shock, no hurt, nothing of the sort. It's a simple question. You suggest that what we (it's not just me, of course) are saying about "dead in sin" "mutilates John 1." Is that really what you believe ... that we are happy to discard John 1 or chop it into useless pieces to make sense of Eph 2? I mean, I see nothing in John 1:12 that requires "belief comes first" and I see much in the rest of Scripture that says it can't. I do see the implications you're suggesting (and I would suggest they're based precisely on some of these presuppositions I was talking about) and have not suggested that you have mutilated Eph 2 by imposing your understanding of John 1. I have said that I haven't a clue what you ("you" plural -- those who don't think it means some sort of genuine "dead") mean by "dead in sin". So I'm just curious if you genuinely believe that John 1 is so abundantly clear that anyone who believes that "dead in sin" means something spiritually, actually dead has to chop up clear Scripture to do it? If so -- if we are so badly deluded -- why bother? We're just as far off as Dan T, aren't we?
I don't get the problem with Genesis 20 (although it ought to be a real problem to those who argue that God never intervenes in human free will -- not you, just others). First, "dead" can obviously mean different things. There is dead physically (which he clearly wasn't) or dead emotionally or dead spiritually. There is dead now and dead later. I mean, I've heard (more than once) the threatening phrase, "You're a dead man! You just don't know it yet!" (Obviously just in movies, but I've heard it.) I don't see it any different with God's words to Abimelech. That is, if Abimelech had carried out the sin he had intended and didn't repent, he would be actually dead ... likely in a matter of moments.
But this whole "dead in sin" thing has never been cleared up. You told me you only had to explain what it was not, not what it was. That doesn't clear it up. So far I know it's not really anything actually dead. Potentially dead? I don't know. But, you're right, email would likely be better. My email address is available.
I'll probably email you sooner rather than later, Stan, but it would be to start a private conversation, not to finish a public one.
John 1:12-13 is clear, and nothing in its immediate context muddies its meaning.
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [Christ] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
The "right" or "power" or "privilege" of adoption and rebirth -- and the two ARE coupled here, pretty strongly -- is given to those who believe.
Belief logically leads to adoption: the reverse isn't possible from this passage, and the passage isn't ambiguous.
This doesn't come from bringing any presuppositions to the passage: it says what it says. Honestly, I think the case for undue presumption is more clear when you look at a letter written to provide Christians reassurance that they are saved (I John) for explanations about how they were initially saved.
About being "spiritually dead," I do think all that is needed to reject your conclusion is a reason why your conclusion doesn't fit, NOT a counter conclusion.
But what could it mean? You say you don't know, but I've already answered the question, and you responded in another thread.
Again:
What does it mean then? It's possible that our spiritual death is something that was true but not consummated, just our present salvation is true but not consummated: the "second death" of Revelation is clearly an eschatological event, so the sinner's current state of being "dead" in sin may simply mean being bound to that destiny with no hope of escape ON ONE'S OWN.
Spiritually dead means being hopeless and helpless without God's help.
We both agree that -- before we can respond, and we can ONLY respond, not "come" "on our own" -- God must choose us, that He must call us, that He must send His Son to die for us, and that He must offer the gift of salvation to us.
Where we disagree is ONLY this: I believe that one can accept that gift in faith before regeneration, and you believe regeneration happens first.
In both cases, we're saved from spiritual death to regeneration: it's just that I believe that the response of faith is possible before regeneration.
If we already know God's law and God's nature while we're spiritually dead, why is it necessary to believe that the response of faith is impossible for the spiritually dead?
After all, that response of faith ISN'T a work, much less a work of the flesh. While the Bible teaches that flesh is futile on the matter of salvation, nowhere does the Bible teach that flesh is all we have.
About whether I genuinely believe you're mutilating that passage in John 1: well, what do you think the passage means if NOT that belief results in the privilege of adoption?
You see, Bubba, we're back at presuppositions. You assume "the right to become children of God" is the absolute equivalent of "regeneration". And, of course, that would presuppose "receive Him" which presupposes "believe in His name" which presupposes (by necessity) that mankind has the ability to come to Christ in faith ("receive Him") and to understand (not merely know) all that is required to do that and to do something that is actually good (because certainly receiving Christ is good).
Okay, let's assume all of that (although I will point out that "adoption" does not necessarily equate with "regeneration" -- but let's assume all of that). What I end up with is a complete failure (on my part, no one else's) to understand any of that other stuff I've been listing for the past several weeks. I don't know what "dead in sin", "cannot understand", "cannot see the kingdom of God", "hostile to God", "the flesh profits nothing", "no man can come to Me", "inclined only to evil", "no one does good", and on and on and on and on. Before, when I thought I understood them all, I had a "well-oiled machine" going. Everything fit into place. Everything made sense. Everything worked. But now those things make no sense to me. (Perhaps I fall under the "cannot understand" category?) "Dead in sin" (stated as "You were" -- past tense) makes zero sense to me when it means "not consummated". "Well, this lightstand fell on you last night except that in this new reality it doesn't exist anymore so it never actually happened." I'm not suggesting you think any such thing. That's the only way I can figure it. The Bible speaks of the "second death" as future. Paul speaks of "dead in sin" as past (to believers). So I don't see how it can be past tense in any sense if it is future tense and, for us, never actually accomplished. I can see "you were potentially dead in sin" or something (like "Jesus died potentially to pay for the sins of all" ... but that's a different topic), but not "were".
The other thing I can't even start to figure out from this perspective is the notion of "the Sovereignty of God". I mean, He calls and chooses and sends His Son and offers ... but still can't seem to get anywhere until we respond. All that work for nothing (in most cases).
And this whole "faith isn't a work of the flesh" thing is also based on the presupposition that we are "spiritually dead" but not spiritually incapacitated. That is, from my perspective, if we're spiritually dead, then all we have is "flesh" and anything that we do "in the flesh" ("Natural Man") is a product of the flesh (since that's all we have). But you don't believe we are "spiritually dead" in any sort of sense that I do, so I'm lost again.
Am I mutilating Scripture? I obviously don't think so. But I'd be happy to step back to your viewpoint ... as long as no one expects me to understand basic things like "born again", "see the kingdom", "faith", that sort of thing. 'Cause all of it eludes me completely.
Stan...
if we are so badly deluded -- why bother? We're just as far off as Dan T, aren't we?
Well, because we can work through these things and come closer to understanding one another, even if not agreeing. For instance, Bubba and I, who appear to be far apart on many issues, are in total agreement on this point. I think he has done an excellent job of explaining his position.
We have some common ground. How 'bout that?
It is, I insist, more common than not, even with Bubba, Stan, Marshall and Dan. Do we disagree on some points? Sure, but so what? Do any of us claim perfect wisdom and thus insist that our way is the ONE TRUE WAY of understanding a point? No, I don't think so.
We muddle through together, the best we can, by God's grace with love for our fellow muddlers.
Hallelujah, yeah?
Stan, I can't make heads or tails of this...
You see, Bubba, we're back at presuppositions. You assume "the right to become children of God" is the absolute equivalent of "regeneration". And, of course, that would presuppose "receive Him" which presupposes "believe in His name" which presupposes (by necessity) that mankind has the ability to come to Christ in faith ("receive Him") and to understand (not merely know) all that is required to do that and to do something that is actually good (because certainly receiving Christ is good).
...except to say that that last line treads quite close to the belief that faith is a work.
I would point out that existence is good, too, so does that mean that the spiritually dead can't exist because they can't do good?
About whether you mutilate John 1, you still haven't explained JOHN 1.
All your writing about phrases from other passages doesn't tell me one thing about your take on THAT passage.
Your accusations that my interpretation is based on presumptions is ridiculous. The text says what it says: those who have faith (i.e., who believe) are given the right or privilege of adoption. Adoption is the privilege of faith, and so faith is the cause and adoption is the result.
John couples regeneration with adoption, and to decouple them -- as I believe you do, at least tentatively -- is inconceivable: we are brought to new life in Christ, but we're NOT adopted into His family until after a subsequent response in faith?
I think we (finally!) get to the real issue: God's sovereignty.
"The other thing I can't even start to figure out from this perspective is the notion of 'the Sovereignty of God'. I mean, He calls and chooses and sends His Son and offers ... but still can't seem to get anywhere until we respond. All that work for nothing (in most cases)."
If God is responsible for placing the ball in our court -- and if we can't avoid the consequences He decress for what we decide -- then He is truly in control.
YOUR problem of sovereignty isn't solved with regeneration-before-faith unless "faith" is a mechanical response that has nothing to do with free will. You seem to think that all those who are unregenerate CANNOT respond in faith and those who are regenerat MUST respond in faith. If someone MUST respond in faith, in what possible sense is that faith freely chosen?
Bubba,
I think I've hit a button or something. It appears I'm upsetting you, making the conversation extremely difficult.
First, I suggested that "receiving Christ is good" which you say "treads quite close to the belief that faith is a work." So, if I were to suggest a quality of receiving Christ -- is it a good thing or a bad thing? -- you would not say it was a good thing?
Then you seem to be miffed about the suggestion that you're operating off of presuppositions. I don't know why because my claim in the post and the fact of life is that we all operate off of presuppositions.
So, look, I'm going to drop it now. You continue to speak as if "Um, duh! Isn't it patently obvious?" where I'm still completely baffled. "Sovereignty" means "Man makes the choice". I did explain John 1 ... you simply rejected my explanation. (Remember? I said that we are not born by the will of man or by human choice -- you know, like John 1:13 says -- but you rejected that explanation.) And I'm STILL completely lost about everything regarding spiritual death, faith produced by human means, our apparent ability to overcome our own hostility toward God, are ability to slip the bonds of slavery to sin, the ability to understand the things of God, the one single inclination to choose Christ (when I read "inclined only to evil") and so on. You offer "John 1:12! See?" as if it's a trump verse and I'm looking at this PILE of problems that aren't answered by "To as many as received Him ...". So we're not getting anywhere.
Since I've pushed whatever buttons I have that upset you and I have no wish to upset you, I think I'd best leave it alone. You are absolutely certain that the entire Reformation, Calvin, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, (I don't suppose there's a real point in continuing the list) and all of us are blind to the absolutely clear, positively certain verse that says that all of what we see in Scripture to the contrary is simply wrong and God's Sovereignty is easily expressed ... by Him laying out the option. (And just to make it clear, that's the last on the list, not "the real issue".) The whole thing makes you angry, so let's let it go.
Well, I'm still stuck on the whole "nature of Natural Man" thing. I mean, I get the part regarding the limits of his capabilities ("cannot understand", "cannot see the kingdom of God", "hostile to God"), and I get the part about God choosing who He wants to draw to Himself (His being sovereign). I'm still wrestling with that in-between point; the transition between Natural and Spiritual Man. What's more, I don't really see how choice on our part reduces sovereignty on His, particularly when it's within His sovereign perogative to grant us free will (at least I would imagine it is).
To put it another way, (I hope) if Natural Man is not drawn, by whatever means God chooses to employ in order to draw him, he is indeed incapable of coming to certain conclusions about God on his own. Why would he? As far as he knows, as he is, it's all good. But even in these wacky times, with all sorts of goofiness working against TRUTH, one cannot swing a dead cat without still hitting something that can serve as a means of drawing Natural Man to Him. A church building, or a person's gold chain with a cross at the end, Christmas carols every December, whatever.
Are you saying that God chooses who will respond to these many "lures" and who will ignore them?
I know a guy (actually two--his brother, actually named "Guy", is no better) who likes to say that he's never seen any more evidence to prove God's existence than there is for the Easter Bunny. A better example of Natural Man would be hard to find. I respond that I doubt he's made any effort to find any evidence. He's never chosen to seek any out. But he's certainly been drawn, by me and others who have offered to spend time with him on the issue. He's always chosen not to take us up on the offer. Do our efforts not qualify as "God drawing to Himself" in the case of this Natural Man?
Can you see my confusion, or am I just a big pain in the ass?
In answer to your question, Yes. (Just kidding)
On God's Sovereignty, if God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Paul's statement, not mine), but I decide whether or not I get saved, then whether or not I get saved is not part of "all", is it?
But it is my suspicion that the notion that Man does not have Ultimate Free Will (autonomy) is the last possible option on the list of truth claims. Of course Man has Ultimate Free Will. Who would suggest otherwise? (Except, perhaps, me, of course.) (Well, and all those others who see it like I do.)
You're using "draw" in a different sense. When Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44), the word there for "draw" is the Greek word that was used for the way they got water out of a well -- drawing water. It isn't the word for "luring", "wooing", or some such. Imagine looking down a well and saying, "Here, water. Come up here. It's nice up here. You'll like it a lot." No, the idea is -- no, in fact, it is literally "to drag".
But setting aside which word you used, here's the idea. If God did not act, no one would come to Him. It is not in our nature. We are spiritually dead, hostile to God, incapable of understanding, blinded. It's not that He chooses who will ignore Him. It's that everyone will ignore Him. So He chooses who to ... drag. So while the call goes out in general and the Gospel is offered to all, "many are called, but few are chosen."
Of course He acted (or acts). I don't disagree with that and feel it is a given. It's more a matter of how.
If you'll bear with me further, I'm going to reprint John 1:12-13 from my NIV Study bible, followed by the explanatory notes that go with it. Note first that I didn't know it would agree with what had been my first impression of the verses as they were being discussed here. I just now decided to look for notes and it seems to support my understanding:
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God---13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
"1:12 he gave the right. Membership in God's family is by grace alone---the gift of God. It is never a human achievement, as v.13 emphasizes; yet the imparting of the gift is dependent on man's reception of it, as the words "received" and "believed" make clear."
This explanation seems to acknowledge or suggest that even with our free will choice, our "membership" is still not something of which we can be boastful while still requiring our making that choice. This arrangement is the result of God's design, thus, cannot be a human achievement.
I guess the most vexing aspect for me is how this is a conflict for the Calvinist (used as a general term) view of Natural Man and the description of NM's capabilities. I don't see how it is (though I don't assume anything about your opinion of the NIV explanation.).
Congratulations! You've arrived at exactly Bubba's position. "John 1:12 proves that faith precedes regeneration!" And, as I've said to Bubba, it answers none of the problems I see in the biblical descriptions of the nature of Natural Man.
(Note: It's a funny thing. Do a search on regeneration "John 1:12" and you'll find a long list of articles that explain how John 1:12-13 proves that regeneration precedes faith ... the opposite of what you and Bubba are saying.)
So here's where I stand. Either there is a way to make this single verse -- John 1:12 -- correspond to the whole host of verses that contradict it ... or we have a problem with Scriptures that contradict. I can easily see where John 1:12-13 confirms that regeneration is a product of God, required prior to faith. I cannot see where all those others don't actually mean what they say at face value. Your turn.
Stan, one problem with that "whole host" of verses is that A) we disagree about what those verses mean viz. regeneration -- and THAT meaning certainly isn't obvious -- but B) you continue to act as if there is no ground for disagreement.
If we tackle any of those verses, you just focus on the "face value" meaning as if it proves the point. We all agree the flesh profits nothing, but since it's not clear that all we have is flesh or that pre-regenerate faith would stem from flesh, it doesn't prove a thing about the subject of whether faith requires regeneration.
You rarely seem to try to argue that it does, you just focus on the fact that flesh profits nothing -- as if our position contradicts that fact, WHEN IT DOESN'T.
But when we try to focus on any other verse, you just bring up that "whole host" of verses, and, well, whatever that other verse means, you're not going to let it push you from those other passages.
There's nothing, then, to discuss.
You have your "whole host" of verses, still not explicitly connected to your position that faith requires regeneration. Any discussion about those verses focus on their plain meaning but never that connection: any discussion about ANY OTHER verse is derailed because you bring the focus right back to the plain meaning of those other verses BUT NEVER THAT CONNECTION.
And, briefly:
"On God's Sovereignty, if God 'works all things after the counsel of His will' (Paul's statement, not mine), but I decide whether or not I get saved, then whether or not I get saved is not part of 'all', is it?"
It is, since God put that decision in our hands.
About what is "good," receiving Christ is certainly a good thing, but it's not a work, and it does seem to me that you DO tread close to conflating faith and works, to treating faith as just another work.
I reiterate that existence is a good thing, too. If the ungenerate can do no good thing, then the ungenerate cannot simply "be" because "to be" is a good thing.
And, finally, you write, "I said that we are not born by the will of man or by human choice -- you know, like John 1:13 says -- but you rejected that explanation."
I don't reject the plain meaning of verse 13, but it simply does not follow that regeneration precedes faith.
Suppose, just for a second, that faith precedes regeneration: I accept God's offer of salvation by faith, and I am born again.
Am I the one who does the work of regeneration? Do I put new life into myself? ABSOLUTELY NOT: I accept the offer by faith, and just as God has done all the saving work leading up to that point -- the choosing, the calling, the atoning death on the cross -- He continues to do all the saving work. GOD is the One who regenerates me, who adopts me into His family, who imputes to me Christ's righteousness, who sanctifies and ultimately glorifies me.
I was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God, as He is the one who has done the work.
Admittedly, I'm beginning to lose track of all those other verses. But the general feeling of them remains and I never saw how there was a conflict to begin with. That's part of MY problem in understanding these concepts you're presenting. (As to that, I appreciate the latest link and look forward to perusing the articles at length. That appears to be just the sort of thing I was looking for.)
I want to reiterate that these concepts were never much in mind in the past. I never thought about, or even understood the "battle" between Calvinism and Arminianism (if that's the right word), but I don't deny that my understanding of things has been more in line with what Bubba's has been. I also don't think this issue is problematic for either of us from a salvation standpoint if either of us is wrong. But in terms of increasing my understanding, I find the discussion (as frustrating as it is) to be a worthy endeavor. I greatly appreciate your efforts.
In a sense, I can't even understand how this particular split ever occurred in the first place, though I think it must have had something to do with works-based aspects of the pre-protestant church. That would make it a good thing.
Let's try this angle: What is meant by "understanding"? I like to think that I'm not exactly a stereotypical "Natural Man", that I'm saved, that I believe Jesus is Lord and God Himself and my one true way to salvation. But obviously, as this discussion shows, I'm a bit short of perfect understanding. I cannot deny the existence of God because my studies to date have convinced me He exists. Yet, I still am attracted to most of the temptations that lured me in the past. Frankly, if forced, I could not guarantee I could name which temptations I resist because of cultural influence or Biblical influence (love of God), but only that I resist or no longer feel their lure.
You listed in a recent post how one can know one is truly saved (I believe it was) and I do seek to do all those things, to become that type of person, but I do so more by force of will rather than that I've really changed inside. (Sort of "fake it 'till ya make it".) It's what I want, despite the fact that I still want to do sinful things (emotionally, not intellectually). To put it another way, if I did not consciously work on it, I would surely backslide. There's no auto-pilot on this craft it seems. How "Natural" is that? At what point does understanding take over, or does it, and how much understanding qualifies that one can be in the "Spiritual Man" club?
I guess what it feels like is that by your explanation, there should be something "automatic" about the preferred side of the NM equation as there obviously is in the wrong side, that I just don't feel in myself. That's worrisome.
Actually, what I "act like" is that all of my disagreements are ignored. Or, to be more accurate, no one is providing answers.
Here's the flesh problem -- presuppositions. If we are spiritually dead, we have only the flesh from which to operate. Thus, anything that we do, think, feel, is a product of the flesh. Thus, if we don't believe that's a product of the flesh and if we do, that is a product of the flesh. Not having a functioning spirit and, more telling, not having the Spirit, there is (from my perspective) little alternative left but flesh.
So I'm wrong for having a "host of verses" I have to deal with and I should only be dealing with the verses you give me to deal with. What I'm trying to do is fit Scripture with Scripture, but what you want me to do is ignore that other stuff and deal with what you want. If I don't, we've nothing to discuss.
Of course, when I do try to discuss verses connected to regeneration, you dismiss them. How, for instance, can a person "see" the kingdom of God if they are not born again? When I pointed out that John wrote "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him," your answer was, "That's not about salvation" as if that solves the question.
What would likely be best is that you and Marshall and Dan T should all consider yourselves "right" and dismiss this poor fool who mutilates Scripture and ignores plain meaning and tries to correlate things that don't need correlating. It's all much more simple that way. I won't be confusing Marshall, making you mad, or "misrepresenting" Dan T. This is just one of those days that I'm weary and can't keep up the conflict.
Stan:
"So I'm wrong for having a "host of verses" I have to deal with and I should only be dealing with the verses you give me to deal with. What I'm trying to do is fit Scripture with Scripture, but what you want me to do is ignore that other stuff and deal with what you want. If I don't, we've nothing to discuss."
It's comments like this that make me think that you're not arguing in good faith.
Not arguing in good faith? No, I gave that up yesterday when I said, "The whole thing makes you angry, so let's let it go." In the past two days we've exchanged 60 comments on these topics. In every case my ideas are considered unfit for human consumption. You know, mangling Scripture, ignoring plain text, irrational ... not arguing in good faith. I haven't answered a single question to anyone's satisfaction. Although I offer Scripture and rationale and supporting sources, it simply cannot be that there is the slightest possibility that I've offered an idea worth considering.
Now, how should I be viewing all this? "Thanks, guys. I feel the love. It's all clear to me now." And you want me to "argue in good faith"? I've tried. I've been dismissed. I'm not entirely sure I'm going to blog "in good faith" in the coming year. Who needs it?
But, really, what you're hearing is exactly what I said. I'm weary and can't keep up the conflict. If it was a friendly conversation between people, a fair exchange of thoughts, a discussion of ideas, I'd be fine. It's not. I'm not.
Stan:
"In every case my ideas are considered unfit for human consumption."
I will reiterate what I wrote earlier.
We both agree that -- before we can respond, and we can ONLY respond, not "come" "on our own" -- God must choose us, that He must call us, that He must send His Son to die for us, and that He must offer the gift of salvation to us.
Where we disagree is ONLY this: I believe that one can accept that gift in faith before regeneration, and you believe regeneration happens first.
I've made clear that we agree FAR MORE than we disagree. It is unfair to say that I dismiss your every opinion as unfit for human consumption.
My mistake. The ideas I have that disagree with yours are unfit for human consumption. Better? :)
It's better only in that it is less inaccurate, which is a pretty low bar. Then again, you did say you've given up on arguing in good faith.
Bubba, quick Internet lesson. The symbol that is constructed of a colon and a close-parenthesis is what is used in Internet language to indicate humor. Now, if humor is of no value in friendly discussions, then I suppose I'll leave off.
Seeing as you had already implied that we weren't engaged in a "friendly conversation" -- and you did so sans smiley -- I disregarded the symbol because it's not as if it was an explanation, retraction, apology, or defense for your previous rant. :P
Just because I seem to be making you mad doesn't mean I don't want to try to keep it friendly. And I just had to teach my granddaughter that sticking her tongue out was a bad thing. Don't make me come over there ... :)
Post a Comment