C
Calvinists: How do you exegete Romans 1 to support your views?
- Status
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
You got it wrong again
, lol. It is: Isaiah45_9.Iâm a Thomist for the most part, so I have no problem with election. I have a problem with double predestination. But that is for another thread
However, we all (without distinction) must appear before the judgement seat of Christ:
[bibledrb]2 Corinthians 5:6-10[/bibledrb]
T
TOmNossor
Guest
This thread has gone a totally different direction than I thought it would.
I reject TULIP, but I have not rejected all aspects of presuppositional apologetics.
Romans 1:18-21 is a text that is used to show that there is a difference in the KNOWING of the believer and the KNOWING of the non-believer. Total depravity is better defended with other texts IMO.
One of the tenets of the PA group is that the Bible is Godâs word (I think they would set the Bible apart as the only revelation and sole source and reject Catholicism in this area) and so they find their PA concepts in the Bible.
The importance of PA in my opinion (as an uniformed beginner here) is that it undermines the âways of knowingâ utilized by those who reject God. David Hume highlighted the problem of Induction and most thoughtful Atheists acknowledge that there is a problem of induction and presently there is no solution. The person using PA then claims that Induction/Logic/Knowledge is a human endeavor solely because God is a rational God. The universe is rational because God created it and He is rational. They then accuse the Atheist of using theistic-presupposing tools to reason (wrongly) about the absence of God. But if reason/logic makes no sense in a purely naturalistic universe then the atheist first must establish why the tools of logic work before they can even begin the debate. The person who embraces PA uses logic because God created the universe in alignment with his rational character and thus logic exists.
Humeâs problem of induction is a big deal. If the universe is a product of chance then why does what happened yesterday tell us what will happen today. Why does water freeze at 32 Fahrenheit in Canada have anything to do with what temperature water freezes at in Mexico. And since the tools the Atheist employs are human senses and human reason what basis does he have to believe that there is any uniformity in what these products of random mutations tell him.
There are some interesting forks that come about when adding PA to ones apologetic.
I presently rank PA at number two on the convincing scale for arguments against Atheism. I think number one is still the personal experiences we have of God, but I know well the Atheist response to this and I have yet to see a wonderful response to PA. My understanding is that PA is met by avoidance in many ways. There are some responses I have explored from Michael Martin and one other guy, but I still find value in PA at present.
Anyway, if this thread was intended to be about Total Depravity then continue on. But I would suggest that the idea the unregenerate manâs mind is Totally Depraved is NOT necessary to utilize PA. And generally this idea is considered quite offensive. If your friend has so little ability without being regenerated to understand then how can conversation occur. And Hume was quite the Atheist; he understood the problem.
Charity, TOm
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
What can I say Isaiah 45:9 sorry again?You got it wrong again
Iâm a Thomist for the most part, so I have no problem with election. I have a problem with double predestination. But that is for another thread
However, we all (without distinction) must appear before the judgement seat of Christ:
[bibledrb]2 Corinthians 5:6-10[/bibledrb]
With all due respect ," the election " I was referring to in the last post was unconditional (on mans part) for the choice Rom 9:11(we believe) â( For the children being not yet bornâŚthat the purpose of God according to election might stand,not of works but of him that calleth)
Verse 13 " Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hatedâ
If before he was born Esau was not the elect( or hated) then how can he ( when alive) be said to become " loved" (or elect) when he has already unconditionally been ruled out,and that before coming into the world?
Before life began !
Then must it not also continue to when life is no more ?
Jacob despite his resistance in life could do nothing except the same Potter made him willing : âthy people shall be willing in the day of thy powerâ(psalm 10:3)
This God did ,I believe,because Jacob was a " vessel unto honour"(or mercy)verse21, before being yet born ( then unconditional mercy) If so what has time to do with it? Then after death.
Does your belief in ( your own) election stretch this far: before your birth,irrespective of time and guaranteed to everlasting : on your departure( after death)?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
All good, thatâs why I included the âlolâ (It means: laughing out loud) and a silly face:
.I have had the vessels discussion with my Calvinists friends countless of times. More than I care, really.
It all crumbles down with one single verse:
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
The double predestination would present a contradiction. For how can God desire the repentance of a vessel that is already destined to perish?
God is just and in his justice all have been given a measure of grace necessary for their salvation. It is up to the person to make use of it and respond to the call. Some have been separated for His purpose, but none are created for damnation. He gives them into their own unbelief and wicked desires.
I know you have more verses to sling back and forth but that would derail the thread. You are free to start a new thread.
This is rather arrogant and presumptuous of you⌠To assume that you belief reaches farther than mineâŚ
Au revoir.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
All good, thatâs why I included the âlolâ (It means: laughing out loud) and a silly face:
I have had the vessels discussion with my Calvinists friends countless of times. More than I care, really.
It all crumbles down with one single verse:
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
The double predestination would present a contradiction. For how can God desire the repentance of a vessel that is already destined to perish?
Dear Isaiah 45:9
It is my understanding that in your verse(2
Concerning this coming judgement" :were not some questioning its delay or itâs eventuality ? ( verse 9) "as some men count slackness â;
Where was the " promiseâ of this coming day of judgement?
Peter has already laid the foundation ( of his argument ) in referencing the judgement of the flood( verse 6) upon an ungodly world ,as his evidence against these, who like the âscoffers in the last days(3,4) , who denied the " promise of his comingâ.
If therefore in the days of Noah judgement came,what about that judgement still to come?
In your verse,I believe,Peter gives the reason for this apparent delay in the coming of day of judgement:
"But is long suffering to us ward,( that is Peter and those believers he is addressing) not willing that any( that is,those like themselves ,but still to believe) should perish,but that all( yet to believe) should come to repentance "
In other words the only reason judgement upon an ungodly world was not immediate,was because ( I believe) of those who were (in there time )still to be called out of it ( the world) first and when the last one is and is effectually saved: then will it come.I believe ( Just) Lot in his being brought out and coming from the place of judgement ,is a picture of this.(Genesis 19:28,29)
This is rather arrogant and presumptuous of you⌠To assume that you belief reaches farther than mineâŚ
Au revoir.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Bernard,Dear Isaiah 45:9
It is my understanding that in your verse(2
Concerning this coming judgement" :were not some questioning its delay or itâs eventuality ? ( verse 9) "as some men count slackness â;
Where was the " promiseâ of this coming day of judgement?
Peter has already laid the foundation ( of his argument ) in referencing the judgement of the flood( verse 6) upon an ungodly world ,as his evidence against these, who like the âscoffers in the last days(3,4) , who denied the " promise of his comingâ.
If therefore in the days of Noah judgement came,what about that judgement still to come?
In your verse,I believe,Peter gives the reason for this apparent delay in the coming of day of judgement:
"But is long suffering to us ward,( that is Peter and those believers he is addressing) not willing that any( that is,those like themselves ,but still to believe) should perish,but that all( yet to believe) should come to repentance "
In other words the only reason judgement upon an ungodly world was not immediate,was because ( I believe) of those who were (in there time )still to be called out of it ( the world) first and when the last one is and is effectually saved: then will it come.I believe ( Just) Lot in his being brought out and coming from the place of judgement ,is a picture of this.(Genesis 19:28,29)
When replying to a post you will should see at the beginning of the post, enclosed in [brackets] the name of the poster you are quoting. At the end of the post you will see in [brackets] the end of the quotation of said post: it read like this (without quotation marks) ââ
So if you want to reply to different parts of the post - all you have to do is copy and paste the beginning brackets and close it with the end brackets.
It should look like this:
As for the judgement, I refer you to St. Paul:
[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 4:1-5[/bibledrb]
Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Dear Bernard,
As for the WCF, I agree with you rejecting that justification consists solely in the imputation of Christâs âactive obedienceâ and that salvation is not contingent upon obedience to Godâs law. Of course, as a Catholic, there is much more in there I would disagree with. One interesting note: since you brought up the imputation of Christâs active obedience, I once read a blog post that argued that the WCF does not teach the imputation of Christâs active obedience.
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvinists-who-deny-imputation-of.html
To summarize the article, he points out that of the parallel passages on justification in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession, the WCF only teaches the imputation of Christâs âobedience and satisfactionâ whereas the LBC explicitly differentiates between the active and passive obedience of Christ and teaches that both are imputed to sinners âfor their whole and sole righteousness,â making Christ, as you say, a mere proxy law-keeper.
I would not suggest either that you narrow horizons down to the traditions of any men (unless, of course, there were good reason to do so). However, when terms are unique to a particular tradition, it is best to understand that term in the context of the tradition it belongs to. For example, it would be misleading to use transubstantiation in any sense than how it has always been understood in the Catholic tradition. Similarly, when you use the term âtotal depravityâ in a way that is not in accord with how it has been traditionally used by Protestants, particularly Calvinists since this is a thread about Calvinism, you are creating a wall of ambiguity making it hard to have a meaningful conversation. I am not trying to bind you to stick to the teachings of the Westminster Confession, but I would ask that you use terms according to how they are commonly understood. If total depravity can mean whatever we choose it to mean, we might as well say that Pelagians believe in total depravity.
As for the WCF, I agree with you rejecting that justification consists solely in the imputation of Christâs âactive obedienceâ and that salvation is not contingent upon obedience to Godâs law. Of course, as a Catholic, there is much more in there I would disagree with. One interesting note: since you brought up the imputation of Christâs active obedience, I once read a blog post that argued that the WCF does not teach the imputation of Christâs active obedience.
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvinists-who-deny-imputation-of.html
To summarize the article, he points out that of the parallel passages on justification in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession, the WCF only teaches the imputation of Christâs âobedience and satisfactionâ whereas the LBC explicitly differentiates between the active and passive obedience of Christ and teaches that both are imputed to sinners âfor their whole and sole righteousness,â making Christ, as you say, a mere proxy law-keeper.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
There are two main points I brought up that you have not addressed.
- The prayer in John 17 is not identical to the Atonement, so if Christâs prayer has a limited scope, that does not imply a limited atonement.
- It is not true that everyone who Christ prayed for is necessarily saved. If Christ prayed for Judas in John 17 and he isnât among the elect, that is a direct contradiction of limited atonement.
If you mean for me to show you a passage where Christ says word-for-word, âI pray for the world,â I canât think of one off the top of my head. However, maybe we can find something equivalent depending on what is meant by âthe world.â If âthe worldâ means the elect, there is the example of John 17 where Christ prays for Judas who is also described as âlost.â If it refers to the unconverted, you will see in Luke 23 that Christ prays, âFather, forgive them,â on behalf of his malefactors. Both of them are unconverted sinners here. One repents afterward but no mention is made about the repentance of the other, so it is not an unlikely guess that he was not forgiven. Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
In using this term " total depravity" I was not not intending to encompass ( myself in) all the associated teachings belonging to that tradition where the term originated.
My focus ,I believe was in particular, on the book of Romans ; which book, according to Paulâs teaching (especially Chapter 9) I presumed, was in agreement with the term as I understood it.
I am not saying you do not have a valid point and I apologise for any âwall of ambiguity " created by this.
Out of curiosity : with my assertions that all the sons of Adam( except Jesus:â the last Adam") were and are - spiritually- dead in tresspasses and sins ; and without direct intervention and Gods life giving Spirit and âquickeningâ them into life : they would remain dead: In what way does this view differ from that tradition you refer to?
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
As we differ on our view of the scope of Christâs Prayer( in relation to Judas) I look to your passage in Luke 23. Not to labour the point ,but I would disagree with one aspect of your interesting quote,perhaps your version reads different to mine
verse 33)âAnd when they were come to the place which is called Calvary,â(Golgotha)" there they crucified him ,and the malefactors,one on the right hand,and the other on the left"(Verse 34)
âThen said Jesus,Father forgive them ;for they not what they doâ
I would have said that this prayer of Jesus ,was on behalf of those personally involved in his execution ;or perhaps for the unbelieving Jews causing it : " for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"( 1Cor2:8) .
Well, you might say, this is more of the world that Jesus is here praying for!
Maybe so,but as we were all the cause and reason for his sufferings and death: then is not this fact the primary reason for his desire for this sin to be blotted out and not put to their account?
Therefore it is my belief that Jesus is not praying for the world here in a redemptive sense but only for this particular ( grievous) sin.
My own example would possibly seen in the prayer of Abraham in Genisis 19 where he is interceding on behalf of Sodom .But again I do not believe Abrahamâs heart is upon any save one of his own brethren( and brother) Lot.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
If you remember, our conversation started when you said my prooftext from Romans was not about total depravity and then gave your idea of what âtotal depravityâ means. When I was quoting from the WCF, I was trying to show that the passage I quoted did correspond to what âtotal depravityâ usually entails. I was not trying to say that you are incorrect that man is unable to convert himself nor that this is not part of the concept of total depravity. My point was that this (as far as I understand) is not everything encompassed under that term. I am open to correction on this though as I very well could be wrong about how this term is used in the Reformed tradition and I take the WCF to be representative of that tradition.
For example, I took the quote from WCF 6.4 where it speaks of the âoriginal corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evilâ as speaking of total depravity since the terminology sounds very similar. But it says in WCF 6.5 that âthis corruption of natureâ remains in the regenerate, so I would take this to believe that total depravity refers to the effects of original sin which remain in the regenerate. I think an even clearer text showing the Calvinist thought is 16.5, which says,
We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of Godâs judgment.
You can see from this chapter (chiefly 16.5-7) that they teach that everything whatsoever man does is tainted with sin and worthy of damnation, even after regeneration.
Another thing that makes me doubt that total depravity refers solely to manâs inability to be converted apart from Godâs moving grace is the origin of the âFive Points of Calvinism.â As I understand, the five points are a summary of the Canons of Dort (though, to be fair, I have not read it), which was a response to the Arminian doctrines that were seen as being in conflict with Calvinism. Since Arminians also teach the necessity of grace for manâs conversion (i.e. that man cannot âwillâ his conversion apart from grace), it is hard to see how that doctrine alone would encompass the entirety of the meaning of âtotal depravity.â
So, in summary, I am not condemning you nor saying you donât believe in total depravity. I was just trying to establish what that particular term signified and to defend my initial post where I suggested that the author intended to refer to Romans 7:18-21 instead of Romans 1:18-21. I think this is very reasonable because it is easy to see how the numeral seven could be mistaken for a one by someone in the composition process. I also think that the passage is speaking about total depravity or something like it depending on the definition. If you would like to discuss the merits of Romans 7 as a prooftext for total depravity, we could look at what Romans 7 is talking about and see if that fits.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Our versions are not different. I should clarify that Christ was not praying only for the two âmalefactors,â but I was assuming they are included among those who he is praying for. And shouldnât they be? As you said we are all the cause of his sufferings. And if he was saying, as you said, that he was speaking of the unbelieving Jews, isnât this blaspheming thief counted in that number? But St. Luke does not speak of the conversion of this man, but only of the other one. That is what makes this an interesting example.As we differ on our view of the scope of Christâs Prayer( in relation to Judas) I look to your passage in Luke 23. Not to labour the point ,but I would disagree with one aspect of your interesting quote,perhaps your version reads different to mine
(Verse 34)
âThen said Jesus,Father forgive them ;for they not what they doâ
I would have said that this prayer of Jesus ,was on behalf of those personally involved in his execution ;or perhaps for the unbelieving Jews causing it : " for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"( 1Cor2:8) .
Well, you might say, this is more of the world that Jesus is here praying for!
Maybe so,but as we were all the cause and reason for his sufferings and death: then is not this fact the primary reason for his desire for this sin to be blotted out and not put to their account?
Therefore it is my belief that Jesus is not praying for the world here in a redemptive sense but only for this particular ( grievous) sin.
My own example would possibly seen in the prayer of Abraham in Genisis 19 where he is interceding on behalf of Sodom .But again I do not believe Abrahamâs heart is upon any save one of his own brethren( and brother) Lot.
Now, if it were the case that Christâs words only apply to those who were casting lots and dividing his clothes, then we would have to look at those who directly crucified him instead. You said Christ was praying only that they be forgiven of this particular sin in opposition to a prayer of redemption. I wonder if it is possible for you to hold to this. Would you say that this prayer was efficacious, that all the soldiers there were forgiven of this particular sin (but not their other sins)? Also, do you believe there is forgiveness of sins apart from the redemptive act of Christâs passion, and can the merits of that sacrifice be applied to anyone in part without the whole package being applied? What I am saying is that I think your proposed interpretation is incompatible with the theory of limited atonement that you are trying to defend. Nor do I think you can claim that there is forgiveness of sins apart from Christâs passion since the characteristic Protestant teaching is that Christâs passions was necessary for him to forgive sins since Godâs justice demands all sins receive their entire punishment. If the soldiersâ sin was forgiven apart from the context of redemption, then this contradicts penal substitution. If the soldiersâ sin was forgiven in a âredemptive senseâ but not their other sins, then this contradicts limited atonement (and really undermines the whole Protestant theory of justification). At least, this is the logical conclusion of what you propose read from (what I am assuming are) your assumptions.
I donât think your example of Abraham is relevant since the fundamental assumption we are making is that what Christâs prayers were always efficacious on the basis of Christâs divinity. Since Abraham was not divine, I donât see how looking at Abrahamâs prayers would show any certainty about the efficacy of Christâs prayers.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Hi QNDNNDQDCE ,
So much of Paulâs Epistle to the Romans deals with the subject of mankindâs fallen state, and that viewed by a holy God ;of which fact ,creation itself and conscience within the heart of every man,clearly bares witness to.
It is understandable then ,in your fatherly advice to your brother,that you made this logical connection: as you mighty well have pointed to many other places in this epistle also.
I personally however, believe âCatholicsoxfanâ to be spot on in his original posting; and that Romans 1:18-21 was and is ,the commencement of Paulâs subject matter and foundation for the compelling ( I would claim) doctrine that follows : that is ,relating to the utter darkness within the heart of every man born " in Adam".
This is more obvious I believe,when viewed through the KJV ,especially as seen in :
Rom1:21 âBecause thatâ
( the reason why they were blind to The Godhead ,;and the God of creation :revealed in the creation- verse 20-)
âWhen they knew God,they glorified him not as God,neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations ,and their foolish heart was darkenedâ.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
The reason for my suggestion that whatever author CatholicSoxFan had in mind may have intended to refer to 7:18-21 is that it is more of a complete thought than Romans 1:18-21. That is just speculation on my part but I hope you can see the thought process behind my suggestion. Also, the statement âI know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thingâ sounds like a good prooftext for a doctrine called âtotal depravity.â It is my opinion that Romans 7 is more proper to total depravity whereas, while Romans 1 might be talking about people in a state of total depravity, it really is more proper to idolatry. While idolatry and total depravity might be related, they are not identical. Hope that clears things up. It is possible that I am wrong, and far be it for me to insist dogmatically on what another author intended when I have not even read the original article, but since CatholicSoxFan did not understand how the passage he quoted taught total depravity, I offered a another possible passage that seemed (in my opinion) more relevant.
H
HeteroDoxical
Guest
The above post is my work. You may reference it as you will. Iâll account for my arguments reasons, if required.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Hi HeteroDoxical.
As your work is the original focus of this thread ,I will therefore presume you are in agreement with Catholicsoxfan ; that is : in his assertions ;and choice of prooftext to verify them.
This being the case : do you therefore believe that the historical arguement (of the reformers) was rooted in the preceding verses (15-17) as was the cry of Martin Luther (verse17)
âThe just shall live by faithâ?
And in this connection " the righteousness of God revealed" was claimed to be possessed by and through the hearing of the âgospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvationâ(verse16) .
Would this then be a fair summary of the context of Catholisoxfanâs choice of text he has selected to use?
Of which verses it was also claimed : âForâ âthe wrath of God is revealedâŚagainst allâŚunrighteousnees of menâ that all outside of the saving effects of" the gospel of Christ"
Regarding your own statement that in using your version ( of the NT) for the said âprooftextsâ, you claim the KJV (for example) is more or less the same wording : this statement I disagreed with in my original post on this thread and I maintain that position throughout the verses.
Where therefore under this same âwrath of God revealedâ.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
HeteroDoxical
I was using a small tablet to complete the above.unfortunately I must have accidentally " "clicked " to the last line: âWhere therefore under this same " wrath of God revealedâ
This line should be read following after " that all outside the saving effects of " the gospel of Christ" where therefore under this same " wrath of God revealed".
Apologies and hope this clarifies my post somewhat.
- Status