First of all, I was not attempting to be exhaustive in the previous post about Total Depravity. I was attempting simply to deal with the aspects of that particular doctrine that I found somewhat fallacious, or maybe just incomplete. "aworthydiscussion" said,
"Saying that man doesnt need divine intervention to respond to God puts you in the pelagian camp which says man has the ability to respond to God in and of himself."First of all, allow me to reiterate a point from my previous post. I never said that we don't need divine intervention from God to respond to Him, exactly the opposite. My point was that God provided that divine intervention for everyone in Jesus Christ, and now we need to look to Him to be saved. Thus the divine intervention we need is part of the finished work of Christ. We don't need further intervention beyond what Jesus did. To say that we do, diminishes the perfect and complete work of Christ. Furthermore, I did concede the point that we need the Holy Spirit to draw us to God. However, I would also emphasize the point that the Holy Spirit draws all men to God, but some don't listen. This is part of His present ministry in the world.
I believe in the basic premise of Total Depravity, that all men are completely wicked, enemies of God, hostile to God, dead in trespasses and sins, etc. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that this depravity precludes our ability to hear, understand, and believe the Gospel when it is preached. I believe that all people (not just the 'elect') have the ability to respond to God, but only the 'elect' actually do respond. And again, I don't believe that man "has the ability to respond to God in and of himself," because I believe that man has nothing in and of himself! Even his ability to reject God, is a gift from God!!
And in response to Stan - I hope I can be as magnanimous in my response as you were in yours - whether talking about a 'revelation from God' or 'spiritual life,' the question still remains: when is this 'spiritual life' given, and through what means?
I think we are essentially dealing with an equivocation of terms here, Stan. Calvinism still essentially says that there must be a moment of 'divine intervention' where God imparts that life (I agree up to this point), but that this life comes as an act of immediate, supreme sovereignty, that requires nothing of the recipient (not even faith), and which the recipient is powerless to resist (now we're into Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election). What I say, and what I believe the Bible clearly teaches, is that it is the faith of the individual that releases the immediate grace of God - faith in the message preached. This ascribes no merit to the person, per Ephesians 2:8, 9 & Romans 11:6. I have heard Calvinists insist that if it were required for a person to believe in order to be saved, than that would mean that we somehow earned God's favor. Yet Paul is VERY clear that individual faith is the means by which we receive grace. 'Faith' and 'works' are mutually exclusive. "It is by faith, and not by works," how then can we call faith a work???
To sum up:
- I believe that all men are completely wicked by nature, by choice, and by divine declaration.
- I do not believe that our wickedness means that we are unable to understand and accept the basic Gospel message (the "natural man" can understand nothing more of God than this, but he can understand the Gospel, cf. 1 Cor. 2, distinction of "the mature" - what did he preach to the others? 1Cor. 2:2).
- I believe that the person of Jesus Christ, and His completed work on the cross is the 'divine intervention' from God that allows all men to be saved.
- I believe that faith is the means of receiving God's grace - and that faith is ultimately a choice.
1 comment:
Remaining in my "friendly and magnanimous" mode, I wish to point out two things primarily for your edification.
First, if you do not plan to take the actual position of actual Calvinists into account, I'm not sure you can rightly be said to be refuting Calvinism. Presenting views that Calvinists don't hold and explaining why they are false doesn't help. I'm sure you've heard the term; it's "strawman". To better serve your intent of refuting Calvinism, perhaps you ought to better understand what it is you are trying to refute.
Second, my belief that Natural Man will not respond to God because he cannot is not some "logical conclusion", some guess I've come to based on information I have about the nature of fallen Man. It is logical, but it is also a direct quote: "Natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Given "dead in sin", "hostile to God", and all that, it appears that Paul believes that Man in his natural state "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God" because "he cannot understand them." Now, you may think it is an overreach to say that a fundamental change to the nature of Natural Man is necessary for Man to respond to the Gospel, but you will do so over the objection of Paul.
Remember ... that was written with a smile ... friendly and magnanimous.
Post a Comment