I don't like the term. Long before I stood where I now stand, I classified myself as a Calvinist because I knew those dirty, rotten Arminians believed you could lose your salvation and I knew "once saved always saved". Then I came to find out that I was a four-and-a-half point Arminian. I don't like the terms "Calvinist" or "Arminian" because they reek of "followers of" some guys that most people have forgotten and shouldn't be following. As I've said in the past, I arrived at my current doctrinal position not on the basis of some writings from John Calvin, but on the basis of what I find in Scripture. So I don't like the term "Calvinist" ... but I accept it. I mean, it turns out that the term essentially describes the doctrines I believe, so it is an essentially accurate description of what I am in terms of doctrine. So be it.
But why? What Scripture leads me to believe -- and as strongly as I do -- that God is the Absolute Sovereign, that He chooses whom He will save without regard to their merit, that He intended to save some and actually accomplishes exactly that, that those whom He intends to save will certainly be saved, and that none of those will be lost? Well, it's a lot, really. And I don't intend to actually lay it all out here. I can later. Maybe you might be interested. But not here. You see, when I consider the questions (plural), I start with what I consider to be an abundantly clear situation in the Bible -- the condition of Man. If this condition is accurate, then it serves as a massive roadblock to a whole lot of other possibilities. Where does faith come from? Is salvation the result of Libertine Free Will? Does God choose whom He will save, or do we choose (and maybe He agrees)? Are there those who lose their salvation? If God chooses to save someone, can they ultimately refuse? Just how free is Man's Free Will? So many possibilities, but it is this one starting place that prevents me from going there and directs me down the path I'm on.
That starting place is the biblical description of Natural Man. It isn't a minor description, an obscure conclusion based on eisegesis (reading into Scripture what I think it means) or, frankly, even clever and careful exegesis (reading out of Scripture what it means). It seems blatant. It was this starting point that, when I was faced with it, forced me to change my perceptions ... that made me a "Calvinist". How does Scripture describe Natural Man, the unregenerate human in his natural habitat? Let's look.
In Genesis 6 we read, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen 6:5). We might think that this was only the bad people and that God wiped them all out with the Flood, but at the end of the Flood we read, "The LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). The solely evil inclination of the heart of Man from childhood, then, is a given. This is why David wrote, "The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one" (Psa 14:2-3). "None who does good" is an absolute statement, and "not even one" is a repetition that explains it to be completely absolute, not mere hyperbole. Paul saw it as the "great bad news" (my phrase) that precedes "the Gospel". In Romans 1:18-3:23 he lays out the serious condition of Man, both Jew and Gentile. In his roundup of the problem (both Jew and Gentile) he quotes this very passage (Rom 3:9-18). So the first thing we learn about Natural Man is that his heart is inclined only to evil, and that the concept of "good" then is outside his operational parameters. This is a constant theme in Old and New Testaments.
The Bible doesn't stop there. We understand a common use of the term "the flesh" to be a reference to our sinful nature (as opposed to simple physical bodies). The Bible talks a lot about "the flesh". Jesus said, "The flesh profits nothing" (to which Luther responded "And that's not a little something"). Paul said that "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). The alternative to "the mind that is set on the flesh" is "those who live according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:5) which, I would assume, is not a reference to Natural Man. Only one who is born again can live according to the Spirit. Thus, Natural Man is, by nature, hostile to God.
Paul uses the phrase "children of wrath" in Eph 2:1-3. Same thing -- hostile to God. But there is a more in that passage. "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked" is one phrase. Of course, that can't mean "dead" in the sense of physical life, so it must mean spiritually dead. This explains the 1 Cor 2:14 reference that says, "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." I didn't say it; he did. "Not able to." It is the same kind of phrase Jesus uses when He says "no man can" when talking about believing in Him (John 6:65).
Another concept Paul uses in that same Eph 2 passage is the idea that Natural Man is "following the prince of the power of the air". This is a repeated theme as well. In 2 Cor 4:4 he writes, "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." You see, the biblical picture is not that we are "free agents" in some sense, but rather that Natural Man is a slave to sin (Rom 6:16-23). We don't get some free choice here. The options are "slave to sin" or "slave to God", and the choosing is outside our capabilities.
You know, I've only scratched the surface here, but what do I have to deal with so far? I have "inclined only to evil", "none who does good", "the flesh profits nothing", "hostile to God", "unable to please God", "dead in sin", "not able to understand the things of God", "no man can", "following the prince of the power of the air", "slave to sin", "blinded by the god of this world", and so it goes. Now, I understand that we'd like to believe that we come to Christ in faith that we produce and that all seems rather nice and proper, but to me this litany of the problems of the condition of Natural Man makes that an impossibility. It isn't unclear or obtuse. It seems quite clear. Unless someone can offer me a (clearly quite expansive) explanation of how all of this does not mean at all what it appears to mean regarding the condition of Natural Man, I'm forced to be one of those dirty, rotten Calvinists. "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
21 comments:
Stan,
Like the post today. Good foundation and helpful for some of the questions I struggle with.
Thanks,
Tony
Unless someone can offer me a (clearly quite expansive) explanation of how all of this does not mean at all what it appears to mean regarding the condition of Natural Man, I'm forced to be one of those dirty, rotten Calvinists.
One word: Hyperbole.
Second word: Fallen (as in, not 100% brilliant/right/understanding 100% of the time).
Peace, fellow fallen man.
This "hyperbole defense" doesn't work. The "hyperbole" explanation is offered up and, while alleviating the pressure of "Really? That bad?", eliminates any real meaning. It makes the author (who, ultimately, is God) to be an idiot. "I know, I know, you said 'all' or 'not one' or 'none' and all that, and clearly you appeared to use those kinds of extreme phrases as confirmation of the extreme conditions described, but you're obviously not so good at explaining things because, frankly, Man's not that bad off. He's only (what was your phrase?) 'not 100% brilliant/right/understanding 100% of the time'." In other words, "It's hyperbole" is not a "clearly quite expansive" explanation.
"Hyperbole" does not explain why Jesus said that the reason some do not believe is that the Father doesn't grant it to them (John 6:65). "No, that's hyperbole. The Father doesn't have to grant for them to believe." "Hyperbole" doesn't explain the hostility of Man toward God in Romans 8:5-8. "Well, sure it says 'the flesh is hostile to God', but that doesn't necessarily mean 'hostile'. It means 'irritated' or 'unsure'. And just because it says 'Those who are in the flesh cannot please God' doesn't mean that they cannot. It only means that they're ... 'not likely to'. See?" And so it goes. Paul's "unable to understand" and David's "none who does good" followed by the emphatic "no not one" and God's "inclined only to evil continually" and on and on are placed in the category of "hyperbole" which ends up meaning "not so much after all" until it really means "nothing to worry about".
I said (as you quoted) quite clearly I need a quite expansive explanation and "hyperbole" is the weakest one you can offer to the bulk of Scripture that says otherwise.
Stan, consider Daniel 5 and please tell me, was King Belshazzar born again?
It seems to me that he must have been.
After all, God sent a message of judgment against him, and he understood that message: he promised royal authority for anyone who could intepret that message correctly, Daniel interpreted it, and the king rewarded Daniel.
You insist that it is absolutely true that the natural man is "not able to understand" the things of the spirit of the Spirit of God (your words, your emphasis).
Well, never mind that what Belshazzar understood was a message of judgment: he understood a message from God, and no one can do that without being regenerated. Q.E.D., Belshazzar was regenerated.
Not my words. And therein lies my problem. I can assume as you do that Belshazzar as Natural Man was perfectly willing to accept and able to understand "the things of the Spirit of God". That's fine. That would put me in good company. That would eliminate most of this discussion. Okay. Except it would put me at odds with Paul whose words I quoted. They're not my words.
I don't have to assume that Belshazzar was regenerated. (The error of the false dilemma.) I can also conclude that perhaps "the things of the Spirit of God" are something more than simple facts about God's nature (which Romans 1 says we know intrinsically) or the words spoken by Daniel explaining the meaning of the words on the wall. I wouldn't begin to suggest that Natural Man has no ability to understand basic facts, apprehended by the mind. Of what value would preaching, evangelism, the Word, or apologetics be if that were true? I'm referencing "the things of the Spirit of God" which are "spiritually discerned" and are folly to Natural Man. (Again, not my words.)
I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Bubba doesn't mean "YOUR WORDS" as much as your understanding of them. I share that concern because of a couple of things.
First, my own belief. It is largely a matter of choice in that I don't feel too much but rather know based on available evidence and data, that God is and that Jesus is Lord and Savior. As much as I'd like to be so convinced that I walk in true piety and sanctimony so often unconvincingly postured by some.
But, and this leads to the second point, the extent to which I understand is limited and always will be whilst I walk the earth. As my natural self now wants what God has promised, I still, as did Paul apparently, struggle with doing things I don't want to do. How then does one know one is among the elect as you understand the term to be?
Also, I still think the manifestation of what you understand God's decision process to be could include a slow and gradual longing that develops in a natural man that leads to seeking out something to fill a void, or even a chance encounter with a believer who says what he's heard before in a way that rings true. Is it the longing that is God calling the natural man or is it in the words of whatever he finds or chances upon that draws him? Perhaps these questions are unanswerable, but they are pertinent to some extent, to my understanding of what you believe to be the case.
On a side note, the notion that nothing can separate us from God once we are His is something I've always taken to mean nothing aside from either God or us. Would God decide to harden our hearts after having been saved? I don't think so. But can we turn from Him after being saved? I kinda think yes if the testimony of some who claim to have done so can be believed. And as doubt is almost always present in most believers, one must take such people at their word as to the level of their sincerity when they say they used to believe but no longer do.
I will say, however, that no matter how one describes or categorized my personal belief, I can't see that I'd ever stop believing because the logic of it all seems so blatantly clear to me.
I used the words verbatim from Paul's writings and I didn't shade or nuance them in any way. "My understanding" didn't come into play on those words. I didn't offer a description, an exegesis, or an elaboration on them. It's what Paul said and it's how I took it ... and like all those other points, no one has offered the slightest explanation of what else they could possibly mean. Just the argument "Uh uh!" doesn't cut it. (No one has offered that argument. I'm just sayin'.)
Marshall Art: "How then does one know one is among the elect as you understand the term to be?"
Reasonable and very good question. I won't offer an answer on my own. I'll offer the biblical one. "For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:5-10). Thus, a changed heart makes a changed life and that changed life can be seen in an increase of godliness. If you have an ever-increasing practice of such qualities, you can know you are among the elect. If there is no change, you are "blind".
Marshall Art: "Is it the longing that is God calling the natural man or is it in the words of whatever he finds or chances upon that draws him?"
The problem for me is not the drawing of God. The problem for me is the transition from "dead", "hostile", "inclined only to evil" (and so on) to "faith", "choosing Christ", "repentance". It is that transition that I'm addressing. If the first is the true condition of Natural Man, then the second can only occur by a radical change in the first. I mean, sure, perhaps with the drawing of the Spirit a Natural Man may become less hostile or may be curious or something like it, but not actually making that transition from one to the other. If we actually have a person who, prior to regeneration, seeks God, then we actually have an error in Scripture when Paul wrote, "There is none who seeks for God." I'm not willing to go there. But your description isn't unacceptable. I believe that lots of unsaved people "seek for God" in the sense that they want from Him what they desire for themselves (things like "love, joy, peace", maybe even "fire insurance" -- that kind of thing). Certainly, though, they aren't seeking a relationship with God or Paul was mistaken.
If you have an ever-increasing practice of such qualities, you can know you are among the elect. If there is no change, you are "blind".
So by that standard, my friends (gay and straight) are all obviously among the elect, as they DO exhibit even increasing practice of such qualities. A more Godly, gracious and loving group of believers you'd be hard-pressed to find.
Excellent point (although I don't believe in the "elect" the way you do, still, an excellent point)
Just a question here, Dan T. Is it your goal to continually argue that the Bible does not teach anything about homosexual activities and that it is not sin to engage in them and that it's all okay and we had better just get used to it ... regardless of the topic at hand? I mean, "gay or straight" was nowhere in sight in this post or conversation, but you felt the need to bring it up. 'Cause if that's the case, give it up, man. At some point I just stop putting it up.
Marshall, you do, of course, have to be careful about not deceiving yourself into thinking you're growing in godliness. I mean, it does have to conform to Scripture and all.
Stan...
Is it your goal to continually argue that the Bible does not teach anything about homosexual activities and that it is not sin to engage in them and that it's all okay and we had better just get used to it ... regardless of the topic at hand?
1. Ha! It does come up a lot, don't it? I guess I bring it up because it's one of the Big Differences between my faith community and more traditional ones that tends to make the traditional ones question our Christianity.
2. It is NOT my position that the Bible teaches nothing about any homosexual activities. Clearly, the attempted rape by men of straight men has homosexual implications, for instance. Clearly, SOME sort of homosexual activity seems to be condemned in the two Leviticus passages condemning "menn laying with men." It's not my contention that the Bible NEVER discusses homosexual behavior. It's just that my community would disagree with the popular notion that it is speaking of ANY AND ALL homosexual behavior.
3. But regardless of whether the more traditional ones accept our Christianity, clearly we are Christians for exactly the reasoning you offer here and in a later post: You can know we are Christians because of our lives, because of God living in our lives. Because the fruit of the Spirit is increasingly present in our lives. Because we have love for one another. As the Bible states.
I was just pointing out that your reasoning here and in the latter post are exactly why you and your friends can know we are Christians, even if we disagree with you on a few behaviors/beliefs.
Thank God for God living in and with and through the lives of the church!
I think it's telling that you see the difference between yours and "the traditional". I'm always fascinated when people show up willing to toss out what has always been in order to serve what now is. Just sayin'. (Because this will not become another thread on the sinfulness of the activity.)
Brother Stan, I use "traditional" just to help. I'm mostly Mennonite in my belief system and you can't really get much more traditional than that. No one is "throwing out" anything. I was using a label to help distinguish moreso between more fundamentalist than traditional (although, there again, labels fail since the anabaptist movement has always been about getting back to the fundamentals of the faith, so I am a radical fundamentalist, too, in a sense).
That's the problem with labels. Perhaps if I'd said between my faith community and the more hardline calvinist? I'm not sure which distinction would serve best, but I hope you get my point.
Peace.
Dan Trabue: "No one is 'throwing out' anything."
The traditional Mennonite (up to today) view is to exclude homosexuals. You don't. The traditional view of the Church holds that homosexual behavior is a sin. You don't. The common view through history on the topic is the same. Yours isn't. Not throwing out anything? Can you say "semantic dodge"?
Look, Dan, every source I can find says something like "Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful." It is only now, in the last 50 years, that any have changed that view. Hang it on the Calvinists if you want, or the Fundamentalists if you must, but there is no doubt in the least that Christianity has always held this view and yours is a divergence, not from some minority or odd ball views or some radical religious bigots. It's all of Christendom except for your little corner. The Church has always held this view, and your re-interpretation of the texts very clearly says, "All those people for all those centuries for all of Church history were just plain wrong. Fortunately, we've figured it out." That's "throwing out" the traditional view of the Church on the subject.
Yes, I disagree with many Mennonites on the ONE ISSUE of acceptance of gay marriage. Probably on a very few other things.
Having a difference of opinion on a handful of issues (non-essentials) is hardly "throwing out" much of anything. Christians throughout history have disagreed on many issues. Because you disagree with Mennonites on the issue of war, does that mean you are "throwing out" all of Christianity? It's a disagreement on a single issue.
If that was all you were suggesting, I apologize. I thought you were suggesting I was throwing out Christian ideas right and left. I am not. I disagree on interpretation of the majority of Christians on THAT issue, but then, we don't always want to fall in with the majority.
It's amazing to me to think that homosexuality and abortion can be considered "non essential"...and then what some of the "essential" things are. Kinda backwards...
SF...
It's amazing to me to think that homosexuality and abortion can be considered "non essential"
By non-essentials, I'm speaking of non-essentials to our faith. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the son of God who came to earth, taught us God's ways, lived, died and raised again.
These are the essentials of our faith, that which defines Christians. We may disagree on whether or not drinking, smoking, cursing, dancing, divorce, marriage (gay or straight), war, torture, etc, etc... we may disagree on whether or not these actions are sinful or not, but being "right" on each and every sin is not that which saves us.
We are not saved by our perfection but by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. You do agree with me that these are the essentials of our faith, right?
Or, if not, what list of "essentials" are you drawing from?
defining sins isn't not part of the essentials of faith, so there is no connection in your argument. What God deems sinful bears nothing on His work of salvation. That being said, we do have quite a list of sins given to us in Scripture, and homosexuality, getting drunk, using the Lords name in vain, and divorce are clearly on that list. Whether one believes drinking alcohol is a sin or not is not an essential to salvation, but nobody in this blog has said it does, and Stan has never said it does, and I've known him all my life.
We also know that the redeemed will not continue in an active, unrepentant lifestyle of sin. One of the responses to salvation is repentance, but if one continues to freely and openly live in sin without regret, remorse, or repentance, than Scripture is pretty clear on that person's redemptive position. So, if someone is homosexual, but they are repentant of it and strive not to practice being homosexuality, that is a good thing and indicative of their position with Christ. But if that person openly practices his sin without regret or even pangs of conscience, well, we know what I'm saying.
Stan, I am amazed that anyone could say that every single passage that is in regard to the condition of Man is hyperbole. A smattering of passages I could see, but when EVERY SINGLE passage that points out the bleakness of Man's condition, it just wouldn't make any logic or even illogical sense to say they are ALL hyperbole. With them all saying the same thing, one would imagine a point is trying to be made, we are without hope when God is not involved.
David...
We also know that the redeemed will not continue in an active, unrepentant lifestyle of sin.
Check (we agree).
One of the responses to salvation is repentance,
Check.
...but if one continues to freely and openly live in sin without regret, remorse, or repentance, than Scripture is pretty clear on that person's redemptive position.
Hold on there. There are at least TWO options here: One, that they are flagrantly choosing to reject God and sin without regret, repentance or remorse.
But you are overlooking the second option: That they don't KNOW a given behavior is a sin and are engaging in it in ignorance. IF, after all, I am correct and your position on homosexuality is sinful and harmful (which I can point to evidence to support, at least the latter), then you are sinning in ignorance with no repentance or remorse. And of course you would be. That is part of what sinning in ignorance means - that you don't realize your position is sinful and thus, you don't realize the need to repent.
Do you think, David, that if you are mistaken on this point and don't repent, that you're doomed for having such a hard heart? I don't. You know why? Because we are saved by GRACE, not by perfect knowledge of right and wrong.
Right?
David,
That's Danny T's fall back position: that there is some kind of ignorance of God's Word that allows one to continue engaging in a behavior WE know is clearly prohibited. At the same time, he will submit that the very mention of God's Will is somehow sinful and harmful when it's the "sinners" reaction to the truth, and refusal to accept it that harms him--not the reminder of the truth itself. God has given him over to his false and poorly defended beliefs and no logical and reasoned argument for the facts and Truth will sway him. Go ahead and question him at his blog and see if there's an argument he can present that isn't fraught with gaping holes through which all of God's creation cannot easily pass.
As to my initial statement above, there is no way that anyone in THIS society can know that his favored sin is prohibited completely. Those like him have merely hung their hats on whatever they submit passes for a legitimate loophole so as to spare their homosexual friends and appear more holy and sanctimonious. It's very sad.
Marshall...
That's Danny T's fall back position: that there is some kind of ignorance of God's Word that allows one to continue engaging in a behavior WE know is clearly prohibited.
And, as we all know, Marshall and David can not ever be wrong because... well, why IS it you can't be mistaken?
Marshall...
As to my initial statement above, there is no way that anyone in THIS society can know that his favored sin is prohibited completely.
Well, quite clearly, there are MANY in this society (assuming you mean the modern US society and the Christians within it) who can have an honest difference of opinion on this matter. You think it's not sinful to call gay marriage wrong, bad, deviant. I think it's quite clearly wrong. I think gay marriage is a good, holy thing. You think it's quite clearly wrong.
In FACT, there IS a way that people in this society can have an honest difference of opinion on this matter. You and I are proof of that (unless you're saying you don't honestly believe your position, but I assume you do and I KNOW that I honestly believe I'm right on this matter).
The fact is, Christians throughout history have had honest disagreements on issues where both sides thought they were "clearly" right and that there was "no way" anyone could honestly disagree with them. AND YET, Christians of good faith HAVE disagreed.
It seems that some folk have a hard time accepting that, because THEY'RE not convinced of an argument, that no one could honestly disagree with them. That is a sort of hubris that I don't think is becoming we poor sinners, saved by God's grace.
Post a Comment