21 January 2008

In What Sense Is Depravity Total?

by Phil Johnson

very member of Adam's race is born utterly depraved—fallen, alienated from God, and in bondage to evil. In Romans 6, Paul calls it slavery to sin. He furthermore says in Romans 6:20 that people who are slaves of sin are utterly devoid of true righteousness. All in such a state of sin and unbelief are God's enemies (Romans 5:8, 10). They are "alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds" (Colossians 1:21).

Totally.

Human depravity is "total" in the same sense death is total. You can't be partly dead. You can be really, really sick or critically injured and on life support, but you're either dead or alive. There are no degrees of death.

In fact, when Scripture describes human depravity, it's usually with the language of spiritual death.

Ephesians 2, for example, says people in their fallen state are dead in trespasses and sins—spiritually dead (v. 1). They walk in worldliness and disobedience (v. 2). They live in the lusts of their flesh, "indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and [are] by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (v. 3). They are "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (v. 12).

In Romans 8:6 Paul, says, "To be carnally minded is death." He is talking about the carnal-mindedness of unbelief, describing what it means to be totally depraved. He goes on to say (vv. 7-8), "The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

In other words, spiritual death is a total inability to love God, a total inability to obey Him, and a total inability to please Him.

Now, lots of non-Christians will deny that they are hostile toward God. But they are self-deceived. In fact, many who invoke the name of Christ and claim to love God actually do not love the God of the Bible. They love a god who exists only in their imagination—a tolerant, unholy, passive, feeble, weakling god. That is not the God of Scripture. The God of the Bible is too holy for sinners' tastes. He is too wrathful against sin. His standards are too high. His laws are not to their liking. So though they profess to love God, they do not love the one true God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. They are not able to love Him.

The inability to love God as we ought to is the very essence of total depravity. It leaves us impotent to fulfill the First and Great Commandment: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). So everything the sinner ever does is permeated with sin, because he's living life in constant violation of the most important commandment of all.

On the other hand, "total depravity" does not mean that all sinners are always as bad as they could possibly be. It does not mean that every unbeliever will live out his or her depravity the fullest. It doesn't mean all non-Christians are morally equal to brute beasts or serial killers. It does not mean that unconverted people are incapable of acts of kindness or goodwill to fellow humans. In fact, Jesus Himself stated that unbelievers do good to people in return for good that is done to them (Luke 6:33).

The human race was created in the image of God. Though sin has spoiled that image, even non-Christians are capable of rising to great heights of human goodness, honesty, decency, and excellence. "Total" depravity does not mean that every unredeemed woman must be an angry, slobbering hag, or that every unbelieving man is a twisted, degenerate psychopath. It does mean that unbelievers, those who are in the flesh, cannot please God.

So the word total in "total depravity" refers to the extent of our sinfulness, not the degree to which we manifest it. It means evil has contaminated every aspect of our being—our wills, our intellect, our emotions, our conscience, our personality, and our desires.

In biblical terminology, sin has totally corrupted the human heart. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" If the heart is corrupt, the whole person is defiled.

By describing our depravity as heart-corruption, Scripture makes it clear that the real problem with us lies at the core of our being. Our very soul is infected by sin. Nothing about us remains pure. Our tendency to sin is unrelenting and ultimately unconquerable. Sin therefore defines who we are.

Before a perfectly holy and impeccably righteous God we are profane, sinful, thoroughly debased—no matter how good we appear in human terms. Being truly righteous is not merely hard for us; it's impossible.

That is as true of someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa as it was of Adolph Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer. The relative goodness of the world's best people is never enough to merit God's approval. His only standard is absolute perfection. The best of sinners do not come close.

Let's illustrate: suppose every reader of Pyromaniacs lined up at Point Dume (the closest good swimming beach to my house), and we all tried to swim to Singapore. Most of us would probably drown before anyone reached Catalina—just 26 miles away. One thing is certain; no one would make it to Singapore. We'd all be dead long before the goal was met. If I were a gambler (I'm not) I'd bet everything I have that no one would even get as far as Hawaii, less than halfway.

Question: Would those who died before swimming two miles be any worse off than those who died twenty-three miles offshore? Of course not. All would be equally dead. The goal was just as hopeless for the trained, expert swimmer as it was for the fat guy who did his training by sitting in front of a computer blogging all day.

That is how it is with sin. All sinners stand condemned before God. Even the best of Adam's offspring are thoroughly sinful at heart. No matter how good they might appear through the lens of human judgment, they are in exactly the same hopeless state as the lowest degenerate—maybe even in a worse state, because it is harder for them to acknowledge their sin. So they compound their sin with self-righteousness.

People are prepared to be called sinners in their sin, but they do not want to be labeled sinners in their religion. But this is crucial: Human religion does not contradict depravity; it only proves it. Human religion substitutes other gods in the rightful place of the true God. It is the very essence of God-hating. It is false worship—nothing but an attempt to depose God. It is the very worst expression of depravity.

Remember—it was the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned with the harshest invective He ever uttered. Why? After all, they believed the Scriptures were literally true. They tried to obey the law rigidly. They weren't like the Sadducees, religious liberals who denied the supernatural. They were the theological fundamentalists of their day.

But they refused to recognize the bankruptcy of their own hearts. They trusted in themselves that they were righteous and went about trying to establish their own righteousness, instead of submitting to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3). Remember what they told the man born blind in John 9:34? "You were born entirely in sins"—as if they weren't.

In other words, they rejected the doctrine of total depravity, and it led to their utter condemnation. Jesus said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17). "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).

They thought all their good works made them righteous. But religion and good works do not cancel out depravity. Depravity corrupts even the highest forms of religion and good works. George Whitefield said that God could damn us for the very best prayer we ever put up. John Bunyan agreed. He said he thought the best prayer he ever prayed still had enough sin in it to damn the whole world. Isaiah wrote, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isaiah 64:6).

Unredeemed sinners are therefore incapable of doing anything to please God. They cannot love the God who reveals Himself in Scripture. They cannot obey His law from the heart, with pure motives. They cannot even grasp the essentials of spiritual truth. First Corinthians 2:14 says, "A 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." Unbelievers are therefore incapable of faith. And "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" (Hebrews 11:1).

Note: The key word in all of that is inability. Sinners are totally unable to respond to God, apart from His enabling grace.

That's the starting point for a sound, biblical understanding of soteriology.

Phil's signature

264 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 264 of 264
Paul said...

Billy,

Just so I am clear, you are saying that you think Calvin did not view faith to be a gift from God? Did you skip over my post and Strong Tower's post? Even with that you still say that faith comes from you?

Anonymous said...

Paul and Strongtower,

No, I think Calvin believed that faith was God's gift to His elect (and Arminius did as well). What I was suggesting is that he didn't use Eph. 2.8 to back that notion up; that's all.

I know we're going to disagree over this 'til Jesus comes; and I want you all to know that I appreciate you as my brothers and sisters in Christ; you are defeding God's glory and what you believe the Bible is communicating. My endeavor is the same.

May God bless you guys.
Billy

James Scott Bell said...

Paul, I'm not sure Mr. White, whom I admire in some respects, is considered a Greek scholar on the order of Robertson. Further, not only is the grammar dispostive, but also the syntax. It is redunant for "faith" to be contrasted with "not of works" since that is already definitionally true.

"Though some think it refers back to “grace” and others to “faith,” neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter whereas “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Eph. 1:15 and 3:1 touto, “this,” refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (2:4-8a), whose basis is grace and means is faith." (Bible Knowledge Commentary)

I find no more eloquent comment on this verse than the great Adam Clarke:

"The relative τουτο, this, which is in the neuter gender, cannot stand for πιστις, faith, which is the feminine; but it has the whole sentence that goes before for its antecedent. But it may be asked: Is not faith the gift of God? Yes, as to the grace by which it is produced; but the grace or power to believe, and the act of believing, are two different things. Without the grace or power to believe no man ever did or can believe; but with that power the act of faith is a man’s own. God never believes for any man, no more than he repents for him: the penitent, through this grace enabling him, believes for himself: nor does he believe necessarily, or impulsively when he has that power; the power to believe may be present long before it is exercised, else, why the solemn warnings with which we meet every where in the word of God, and threatenings against those who do not believe? Is not this a proof that such persons have the power but do not use it? They believe not, and therefore are not established. This, therefore, is the true state of the case: God gives the power, man uses the power thus given, and brings glory to God: without the power no man can believe; with it, any man may."

Spatulaguy said...

It's either:

A.)God chooses whom he saves (Calvinism)

or

B.)God enables all people to choose to be saved upon hearing the Word (Arminism)

Funny, if B were true, why do we pray as if A was true? When we pray for our evangelical efforts, we pray that God would prepare the hearts of those we are witnessing to. In B, we have nothing to pray for, because the choice is entirely up to the person and not God. If B is true it requires that God have no influence on the decision, otherwise it's really just A. If God bases his decision on whether or not we choose, then it's still B, not A.

Here's some spiritual food to chew on:

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.
- 2 Cor 2:14-17

A few observations:

1. Christ leads us in triumphal procession. He does the leading. He also does the spreading of the fragrance of the knowledge of Him.

2. This aroma has two reactions: life to life and death to death. To some this aroma is pleasing, to others it is offensive.

3. Those who find the aroma pleasing are "being saved" (current ongoing action acted upon the subject). This does not describe how those people are being saved, but that their status is being saved. The opposite is true for those who are perishing.

4. The reaction to the fragrance (being spread by Christ through us) is entirely dependant upon the recipient's condition: being saved or perishing.

5. Paul then makes a point to say that he is not a "peddler of God's Word", but rather someone who speaks "in Christ". (Paul is not condemning Bible salesmen btw.)

6. If Paul were suggesting B were true, then why wouldn't he peddle (sell) the word of God?

And I didn't even have to go into the Greek...
Jim

Bobby Grow said...

Phil said:

Note: The key word in all of that is inability. Sinners are totally unable to respond to God, apart from His enabling grace.

What do you mean by enabling grace? Is this something that man can cooperate with God in, to appropriate salvation?Thomas Aquinas says:

... God does not justify us without ourselves, since when we are justified we consent to his justice by a movement of our free will. This movement, however, is not the cause of grace, but the result of it. The whole operation is therefore due to grace.... one is said to cooperate with another not only as an agent subsidiary to a principal agent, but also as contributing to an end which is preconceived. Now man is helped by God's operative grace to Will what is good, and this end is already conceived. Hence grace cooperates with us. (Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Thelogiae: 12ae, Q.III, Art.3)

Is this what you mean by "enabling grace"? Do we cooperate with God in this sense -- when we are enabled? In the sense that once God's enabling grace has been disclosed to the elect, then man's "free will" is "able" to cooperate with God.

To just say enabling grace, is much too abstract and dangling for the inquiring minds.

ezekiel said...

Looking over all these posts brings to mind that the real difference in the two positions boils down to pride.

Is God's gift something you took or something he gave you? Spurgeon says it pretty well this morning.

""Son of man, What is the vine tree more than any tree, or than a branch which is among the trees of the forest?" --Ezekiel 15:2 These words are for the humbling of God's people; they are called God's vine, but what are they by nature more than others? They, by God's goodness, have become fruitful, having been planted in a good soil; the Lord hath trained them upon the walls of the sanctuary, and they bring forth fruit to His glory; but what are they without their God? What are they without the continual influence of the Spirit, begetting fruitfulness in them? O believer, learn to reject pride, seeing that thou hast no ground for it. Whatever thou art, thou hast nothing to make thee proud. The more thou hast, the more thou art in debt to God; and thou shouldst not be proud of that which renders thee a debtor. Consider thine origin; look back to what thou wast. Consider what thou wouldst have been but for divine grace. Look upon thyself as thou art now. Doth not thy conscience reproach thee? Do not thy thousand wanderings stand before thee, and tell thee that thou art unworthy to be called His son? And if He hath made thee anything, art thou not taught thereby that it is grace which hath made thee to differ? Great believer, thou wouldst have been a great sinner if God had not made thee to differ. O thou who art valiant for truth, thou wouldst have been as valiant for error if grace had not laid hold upon thee. Therefore, be not proud, though thou hast a large estate--a wide domain of grace, thou hadst not once a single thing to call thine own except thy sin and misery. Oh! strange infatuation, that thou, who hast borrowed everything, shouldst think of exalting thyself; a poor dependent pensioner upon the bounty of thy Saviour, one who hath a life which dies without fresh streams of life from Jesus, and yet proud! Fie on thee, O silly heart! "

James Scott Bell said...

Jim, I actually see it the other way round. If God chooses whom he saves (A), our prayers for the lost have no effect whatsoever. The exact number of elect are saved, the exact number of reprobate are damned. Prayers will not change that number one iota.

OTOH, if the Spirit operates upon the heart (e.g., Acts 16:14) we may pray in this fashion. One specific way is that the hearer will have a greater understanding of the Word, or conviction of sin. This requires a much more hands on evangelism, which is the urgency of the biblical witness; and there was no more urgent evangelist than Paul. (I'm not sure how your citation of the 2 Cor. passage is relevant. Not "peddling" the Word for profit is the opposite of preaching the Word in power, which supports my thesis here).

One may even pray for circumstances to reach the heart. Have a look at Amos 4:6-12. God kept hammering Israel with providential punishment to turn them around, yet they chose not to do so. The decision is still with the recipient.

Paul said...

Johnny D,

God is the one who must first turn us. Also, do you think the number of elect/believers can change on iota? Doesn't God already know who they are and when they will come? Seems like you are getting closer to the Open Theist view with each post you write:)

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Kevin,

I agree something must change in the situation for a dead man to hear. The spiritually dead are enabled to hear by the grace of God, and those that hear Him shall live. The fact that there is a change does not get around the fact that life is given to those who hear, hearing is not granted by giving life.

James Scott Bell said...

Paul, I am nowhere near Open Theism, and would appreciate if you'd dispense with that. Instead, you may respond directly to my post, which was a direct response to yours. Thanks.

Paul said...

Kevin,

First I simply said it seems that you are moving there, if I have misunderstood then sorry.

Also, I did respond to your post directly in that post:) BTW, it looks like you were responding to Jim. I think Scripture is clear that it is God that turns us, not we who turn ourselves.

Anyways, hopefully there are no hard feelings and I am glad to read that you are not in the Open Theism camp.

Kent Brandenburg said...

DJP,

Thanks. So based on Romans 1, total depravity or total inability would not be the same as being physically dead, since physically dead people can't know or suppress anything. I haven't heard you say that spiritual deadness is like physical deadness, but I've heard that used before. In other words, the totally depraved person can recognize revelation, because that's how he knows God and glorifies Him not as God. He recognizes the truth but suppresses it.

I believe in total depravity and that it is total inability. I also believe that it is the primary doctrine opposing the modern day church growth movement.

Strong Tower said...

jd-

Read Isaiah 59-

Could it be that all the punishments were meant to prove that they could not turn despite them? And doesn't this accord well with Jesus' statements that even miracles cannot sway the heart of man? Does this not fit that even the disciples abandoned his word despite the miracles they had beheld?

Notice the end of 59 and this is repeated elsewhere. God creates the fruit of the lip. So, on the one hand our prayers do not change God, on the other, prayer is effectual, not because of the righteousness of man, nor or his words, but because of the Word of God that goes forth, forms the words of the lips (see Psalm 139) and accomplishes what God has commanded (Isaiah 55 cf Disciple's prayer 'Our Father).

You said that the number is not fixed. So you have jump from depravity to definite atonement. But, let us suppose for your case, that God does not know who will be saved, for that is the only way that the number cannot remained fixed. As a classical Arminian, you know that they believe in definite atonement, predestination. The number is fixed, it is how it is fixed that divides the camps.

For us, please explain how it is that God does not know at some point in eternity and then knows without destroying the omnicience of God.

Isaiah is repleat with the fact that man's depravity prevents him even responding to God's overatures. In fact, it is recorded that it is He who hardens the hearts and causes the children to wander from his statutes and disobey his commands (Isaiah 63). If as Isaiah says, that even the words of a man's mouth are created by God (Isaiah 57), even in his iniquity, how would you say that that is not effectual? God says it is. Do you honestly believe that we as fallen creatures can rightly know the future through our prayers and not only that but creatively determine it by the words of our mouths? What power you have bestowed on sin.

Perhaps you didn't read that we do not know how to pray (Romans 8:26), and that is why the HS intercedes for us, praying through us. Did you really think it was your words that were being answered, or his? Perhaps you just do not like it that God prevents you from speaking as you would and speaks for you (2 Peter 1:21).

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I'm assuming th s conversation on this one os pretty much over...

I'm just posting this to make sure my picture shows up.

NoLongerBlind said...

J.C. T:
"The spiritually dead are enabled to hear by the grace of God, and those that hear Him shall live. The fact that there is a change does not get around the fact that life is given to those who hear, hearing is not granted by giving life."

I think that you, and perhaps some others on the Arminian side of the "room", are confusing receiving Eternal Life--which is given to those who hear and believe--with the moment of regeneration that most on this blog would say has to occur in a child of wrath before he or she can "believe". It is the very "enabling of the spiritually dead" to "hear-with understanding" that, if I'm not mistaken, marks the moment of regeneration of the previously stony heart.

Once the now spiritually-awakened sinner realizes his current standing before his or her Holy God, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, brought about by the hearing or reading of the Truth--at a certain moment, or, for some, (like me--praise God!) over a period of time--the newly "awakened" and eventually "mourning", "broken-hearted", "poor in spirit", sinner, upon hearing the SOLUTION to his or her (now realized) desperate condition, figuratively "runs to the foot of the Cross" to beg for mercy and forgiveness. (e.g. Christian, in Pilgrim's Progress, running up the hill with the weight on his back.)

"BELIEVING", at that point, seems to me, reflecting upon my own "experience" (I almost hesitate to use that word! ;0) ), to have been the only "choice" I had. It really didn't seem to have been an intellectually-based "choice". Did I -- or does everyone --really have a "choice" to "believe"????? It sure didn't seem like it to me at the time !!!

To quote from the Scriptures (slightly out of context I'll admit) John 6:67-69 : "So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.""

In other words--"Choice? What OTHER choice do I have? You, Lord Jesus, are the ONLY choice!"

But, in my previously "dead" condition (see my profile!), I had no use for a Saviour. I was living my life just fine, thank-you. (And PROUD of it!)

JackW said...

Phil, I have a question for you on the swimming the Pacific illustration that I thought was great.

Yesterday I was reading John MacArthur's commentary on Ephsians and ran across a simular illustration by him, that being people trying to jump across a mile wide river ... or was that your edit job?

Spatulaguy said...

JD-

Thanks for the response.

Is God above or below our prayers? Are prayers commands or requests? When we as finite humans pray that God would bless the hearer of His Word, what exactly are we praying?

If B is true, then God CANNOT influence the decision a person makes beyond a certain point, otherwise it is A. If the hearer is blessed by God with deeper understanding but chooses to reject the message, then our prayers did not change things one iota. The only difference is this makes God a "loser" in the sense that He tried to reach a lost person and "failed".

If A is true and I pray that God might save someone and He chooses not to, then it is I who need to accept the will of God.

I cited the passage because it illustrates my point rather well: God saves his chosen, and they respond to Him. There is no choice presented in the passage. This is why Paul does not 'peddle' the Word of God. It's not something you can sell, because those who are perishing will reject it and those who are being saved will accept it. Since we don't know the number or names of the elect, we simply obey by following Christ in His triumphant procession as He spreads the knowledge of Him.

Jim

J.C. Thibodaux said...

NLB, If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that the 'hearing' Christ refers to in John 5:25 is audibly hearing (by extension, reading, etc). The problem with this is that if as Christ states, "they who hear shall live," then that would mean by that logic that everyone who heard the gospel message would live.

It would also be a most backwards interpretation to assert that those who had already been brought to spiritual life were called "the dead." Hence, there is no spiritual life apart from its source: Christ, who is our life. Though one may be granted by God to see and understand, one is not alive until in Christ by faith.

Paul said...

J.C.

Regeneration is the thing done by the Spirit that grants the sinner the ability to see and understand. If the Spirit has not granted you this ability it does not matter if you “hear” the gospel a million times you will not be able to HEAR and live.

If I am understanding NLB correctly the point is that ALL will “hear” the voice of the Son of God, but it is the ones who “hear” with understanding that will be the ones that live. And the ones that “hear” with understanding are the ones that the Spirit enabled or regenerated to be able to discern and understand the things of the Spirit.

It seems that you are close to this view as well you just do not call it regeneration because you mistake regeneration with life.

NoLongerBlind said...

Thank you, Paul for clarifying my point. Yes, I did mean "hearing with understanding".

j.c. t., I could be wrong, but, the Scriptures seem to suggest that the "moment" of regeneration does not necessarily coincide with the point in time that a person gets "saved" and thereby passes from death--a.k.a., under the wrath of God--to Life; but, it most certainly HAS to precede it.

Dan, or Phil, or someone, am I wrong in this?

As to the passage in John 5:25, there's 2 aspects that have to be recognized and addressed:

1. an hour "is coming"--future-- resurrection unto physical bodies for the eternal state--some, unto life, and, some, sadly, to the lake of fire, which is the "second death".
2. (an hour) "now is"--present--those "previously spiritually dead" who are "born again" or regenerated are enabled to "hear with understanding" and thus be "spiritually resurrected"; it then says that, not only will they--the "dead"-- hear, but that they "WILL LIVE".(The future physical resurrection still awaits these, unless the rapture occurs first!)

Ephesians 2:1 addresses this group: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins"

Colossians 2:13 also: "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him,"

As a side comment, methinks this verse can also be used to show that ALL who are regenerated--"born again"--eventually or immediately come to saving faith and "Live". ("The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.")

Meaning, there aren't any who "hear--with understanding", having been regenerated, and thereby enabled to "hear", and then subsequently, out of their own "free will", "choose" NOT to believe savingly.

Mike Riccardi said...

NLB,

If I qualify as "someone," I'd like to put it out there that I think that, speaking temporally, regeneration and faith are simultaneous, but speaking logically, regeneration precedes faith. That is, one has to be regenerated before believing. But the moment new life is given, one sees Christ as He is and sin as it is and therefore believes in the sufficiency of Christ while forsaking the counterfeit pleasure of sin.

It would seem to me that there would be problems raised about regeneration temporally preceding faith by a good amount of time. One such problem is where a regenerated person who has not yet believed would go should he die in that moment. He would be born again but not saved. I don't think this squares. Plus, as I said before, it must follow that once a person can truly see the glory of Christ in the gospel, such glory and beauty cannot be resisted for any amount of time. It might be likened to someone who has no idea that they're drowning even though their life preserver is hitting them in the face, all of a sudden realizing they're drowning, and then immediately grabbing for the life preserver.

I've appreciated your comments up to this point as well as your commitment to communicate truth amidst error. I hope this note will be received in the spirit in which it was sent.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

Incorrect, regeneration is when we are brought to spiritual life after we have believed. The Spirit does grant that we can understand the gospel, but nowhere does scripture call this 'regeneration.' It's rather silly to say that I "mistake regeneration with life," since regeneration by definition is being brought to life.

NLB,

There is nothing in scripture suggesting that regeneration comes prior to being in Christ, nor is there any logical implication necessitating such. Christ Himself is the fountain of spiritual life, and no one has life apart from Him.

2. (an hour) "now is"--present--those "previously spiritually dead" who are "born again" or regenerated are enabled to "hear with understanding" and thus be "spiritually resurrected"; it then says that, not only will they--the "dead"-- hear, but that they "WILL LIVE".(The future physical resurrection still awaits these, unless the rapture occurs first!)

They would obviously come to life contra the death they now endure; in other words, he is not speaking of physical death and resurrection, nor is He conflating spiritual death with physical resurrection, but those who are spiritually dead shall hear Him and be given spiritual life. So then hearing precedes regeneration. It does not say "previously spiritually dead," but "the dead." Now if there is still breath in their lungs and they have already been spiritually regenerated, then there is no meaningful sense in which they can be called 'dead,' and hence that interpretation clashes firmly with the Lord's words. As for the other proof texts,

Ephesians 2:1 addresses this group: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins"

Colossians 2:13 also: "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him,"


Neither of which say anything about our being revived before receiving Christ (nor does any passage of scripture for that matter), but simply state that God brought us from death to life. We are not made alive together with Him apart from believing in Him, just look at the previous verse in Colossians:

"having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)

Spiritual resurrection which all who believe experience is through faith, not prior to faith.

NoLongerBlind said...

Thanks, Mike R.! You definitely "qualify" as someone! ;^)
Perhaps it would have been better stated "anyone"....

Your point makes good sense, to a degree. Yet, we musn't leave God's Sovereignty and Providence out of the equation.....

If regeneration, which I think we agree means being "born again", and thereby "enabled to hear with understanding"--for the formerly deaf, blind and dead child of wrath-- must be quickly followed by saving faith, how then do we explain the testimonies of those--like myself--who describe their "coming to faith" as a process, not a specific "2nd birthday"-type point in time?

That would seem to posit, then, that the "drawing", or the process of coming to the full realization of one's need for a Savior occurred
before regeneration.....?

I think not.....

May I respectfully suggest, realizing that this is nothing but "Theological speculation" at best, regeneration occurs at whatever moment (the determination of which varies with the individual); the following time lapse until the moment of salvation, whether a split second, days, weeks or months, is dictated by God's providential governing of that individual's circumstances. In the midst of that "time lapse", God is also sovereignly protecting his "future", soon-to-be adopted, son or daughter, whom He chose "in Him before the foundation of the world," (Ephes. 1:4(a))

In fact, in "hindsight", it's quite obvious (in my life, especially!), and Theologically sound, I think, to state that God MUST sovereignly protect the lives of ALL His elect until they each come to saving faith, right?

I know that I am not supporting this from Scripture, but, it's the only way I can make sense of my experience. Also, compare that idea with Bunyon's allegory in Pilgrim's Progress. Christian didn't get "saved"--i.e., when the burden of sin on his back "fell off"--until several chapters into the story. However, prior to that, he was definitely seeking the solution to his realized state of wretchedness and facing future judgement and wrath. He also heard Evangelist "with understanding", and followed his directions......

What do you think?

Paul said...

J.C.

…’O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.’ “Thus says the Lord God to these bones, ‘Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. ‘I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; an you will know that I am the Lord.’” Ezekiel 37:3-6

Your problem is that you have no place in Scripture that talks about natural man being enabled to understand the things of the Spirit. Your problem is that Scripture does not say that all men are enabled to hear and yet that is what your side needs. Your problem is that Scripture says that natural man can do nothing that is pleasing to God and yet you say that with your corrupt heart, nature and mind that you can come to saving faith without first having the Spirit to cause “breath to enter you”. In your system the sinner can improve his state and eternal destiny if he correctly uses this common grace, (or prevenient grace in your system), that is allotted to him. If he has the capacity to “understand” in him than he differs from his neighbor who may not be as bright or as intuitive as you and who fails to “understand” these things as well as you.

Paul said...

I read once a great analogy of regeneration and faith. It used billiard balls and it went something like the cue ball is rolling to hit the 8 ball, when they collide which ball hit first? Instantaneous, but if it were not for the movement of the cue ball then the 8 ball would of never been hit. so the cue ball is regeneration that comes from outside of the sinner and has a cause unknown to the sinner and the 8 ball is faith.


NLB,

Perhaps you are thinking about it wrong. May I suggest that instead of having regeneration take place sometime in the past from coming to faith that what you are experiencing is the process of sanctification. Perhaps looking at Ezekiel 36:31 will shed some more light here in that we see that God has put His Spirit in you and to walk in His statutes, He has given you a new heart and yet after all of that verse 31 says that it is then that you will remember your evil ways and deeds, and you will loathe yourself.

Of course there are far better people that can give you a better answer to this, but I thought I would give you my .02:)

NoLongerBlind said...

Thanks, Paul, for your reply.

I'm not sure that I follow you here:
"May I suggest that instead of having regeneration take place sometime in the past from coming to faith that what you are experiencing is the process of sanctification."

In my attempted explanation, it can't be the sanctification process, as that is what follows salvation.

I'm trying to describe the "process" of coming to the Lord, or, "coming to saving faith" over a period of time, during which, in hindsight, seems like the Lord was drawing me to Himself.

I was definitely hearing the Truth of His Word "with understanding"; but, in His providence, I didn't get exposed to the Gospel itself for several weeks, maybe a couple of months, after He "seemed" to begin drawing me to saving faith.

Out of "nowhere", almost overnight, I went from listening to Rock 'n Roll (The "Good Ol' Grateful Dead!") all the time, everywhere I went, to hungering for the teaching of the Word.

Based on my previously "dead" (Gratefully!) state--as clearly described in Scripture--I must have been regenerated that night, given a heart of flesh ala Ezekiel 36:26, and I "all of a sudden", began seeking the things of the Lord. All praise and glory to God!

Paul said...

I see, sounds like you are a modern day Cornelius.

Our Arminian friend J.C. will tell you that you are describing "prevenient grace" in action here.

NoLongerBlind said...

One further thought, which I had in the middle of the night:

Maybe I'm confusing regeneration with "irresistible grace" in the "drawing me to Himself".....

But, I don't know how I could become interested in the Truth, start desiring to hear the preaching and teaching of the Truth, if it wasn't for the "new heart"....

Not too sure about this; thoughts, my brothers or sisters?

James Scott Bell said...

Theological ruminations aside, here is the bottom line for me, as expressed by J. I. Packer in "Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God"--

"We are to preach, because without knowledge of the gospel no man can be saved. We are to pray, because only the sovereign Holy Spirit in us and in men's hearts can make our preaching effective to men's salvation, and God will not send His Spirit where there is no prayer."

Mike Riccardi said...

NLB,

One thing that I'd lovingly warn you about is reasoning systemically to describe your experience. That might be making your experience your hermeneutical guideline, and that isn't the way to go.

That said, if I had to interpret your experience -- though I don't know all the details -- I would describe that time of hungering and thirsting even before salvation. The "drawing process" as you describe it was still while you were dead, but you were aware of the "Law written on your heart" (Rom 2) because "God had made it plain to you" (Rom 1). I might describe that experience as similar to those of the Jewish fence-sitters described in Hebrews 6:4ff. In fact, that whole letter is a good example. One can express interest in spiritual things, go to church, read the Bible, pray, and still be dead in their sin.

Interestingly -- and I think this was brought up in one of the threads, if not it might have been over at Pulpit Magazine -- the "drawing" in John 6 is the Greek word for "dragging." It doesn't have the gentle, accommodative ring to it that it sounds like it does. The irresistible grace is the effectual call into new life (regeneration).

Remember that there are only 2 types of people: children of God and children of the devil (1 John 3). There is no third group of children of the devil becoming the children of God. Though we might not be able to point to a specific time of salvation in our lives (I'm not sure if I can either), we should know that we were dead and then we were alive; there was no limbo in which we were dwelling till the "drawing process" was complete.

Again, hope this is taken in a spirit of gentleness and instruction.

MIKE

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

Your problem is that you have no place in Scripture that talks about natural man being enabled to understand the things of the Spirit. Your problem is that Scripture does not say that all men are enabled to hear and yet that is what your side needs.

Sure we do, notably the example of Lydia's heart in Acts 16:14; there was no mention of her coming to life or receiving a new heart, God simply opened her heart and allowed her to understand and receive. From scripture we see that grace does precede faith (Acts 18:27), so the idea of prevenient grace, or grace that precedes faith is well past argument. The real question is whether the means by which God draws us to Christ is regeneration. You mention the lack of any specific statements in scripture natural men understanding the things of God, but are ignoring the solid evidence already presented and simply covering for the weakness of your own argument, which is the fact there no mention of spiritual life being imparted before one believes. It has already been clearly shown in answer that the spiritually dead come to life after hearing Christ (John 5:25), and that we are raised with Him through faith (Colossians 2:12), and no amount of demands for the kind of answer you want will change that.

Your problem is that Scripture says that natural man can do nothing that is pleasing to God and yet you say that with your corrupt heart, nature and mind that you can come to saving faith without first having the Spirit to cause “breath to enter you”.

God's grace is sufficient to bring even one who is dead to faith.

In your system the sinner can improve his state and eternal destiny if he correctly uses this common grace, (or prevenient grace in your system), that is allotted to him. If he has the capacity to “understand” in him than he differs from his neighbor who may not be as bright or as intuitive as you and who fails to “understand” these things as well as you.

Man does not have the capacity in himself to receive the gospel, but it must be revealed by God, for it is His grace that allows us to understand and respond to the gospel.

Paul said...

J.C.

Nice that you did not address the Scripture that was provided. Also, if you HAD, read my post it was clear that I said you need ALL people to understand the things of the Spirit. To counter this you bring up Lydia, like that answers the all, to make what point exactly? If anything Lydia was unable to see or understand the things of the Spirit until her heart was opened. Where exactly does it say that everyone who was present had their heart opened again? I missed it. I guess the others present did not need their heart opened because they used their man made "capacity" to come.

I think this conversation has run its course, you think that man has the capacity inside himself to come to God and I do not. I wish you the best of luck to maintain that man made capacity throughout your life.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

Your reference from Ezekiel stated nothing in relation to regeneration preceding faith, addressing it in that context is inconsequential since I already believe that the Spirit gives us life.

"...it was clear that I said you need ALL people to understand the things of the Spirit"

I have no idea what you're talking about. Not all people do understand, that is granted by God.

"To counter this you bring up Lydia, like that answers the all, to make what point exactly?"

That those who are not yet in Christ can have the things of God revealed to them so that they can come to faith.

"Where exactly does it say that everyone who was present had their heart opened again? I missed it."

It doesn't, and I see no reason to believe so, so I'm not exactly sure where you're going with that.

"...you think that man has the capacity inside himself to come to God and I do not."

No, I don't, it is only by God's grace. I've stated as much repeatedly, and am therefore curious as to the basis of your accusation.

Paul said...

J.C.

The Ezekiel passage tells us that they know that He is Lord after he breathes into them, not before. The reason that you need all to understand and then reject is because that is the only way your view stays consistent. The opening of Lydia’s heart is regeneration. It seems that you have a very limited definition of regeneration, but Scripture calls it many things. Such as “washing”, “being secretly taught by God”, “circumcision”, “calling” and “opening of ones heart”. Again you are in the dubious position of having a man that is in the flesh do something that is pleasing to God when Scripture clearly says that this cannot happen.

The thing with Lydia that I was pointing out was that we are only told that her heart was opened and it was opened in order for her to understand or “hear” the message of the Gospel. Now why would it just be her heart? Why not have all hearts opened so that they could make a decision? If one needs their heart to be opened to understand or “hear”, then you would have to believe that all people’s heart will be opened.

It seems though that we have reached an impasse in our dialogue on this so we will part disagreeing on this. I thank you for the interaction though and hope to interact again in the future on some of these things.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

"The Ezekiel passage tells us that they know that He is Lord after he breathes into them, not before."

That's a common theme throughout the book of Ezekiel (one might say the theme), "And then you shall know that I am the Lord," which is also employed in chapters 5, 6, 7, 11-17, 20, 22-26, 28-30, and 32-39. God states as much concerning a great many things both wonderful and terrible that He will do, which does not imply that no one can know that He's God until He does them (for Ezekiel and the other prophets knew this long before He executed His various judgments), but rather that in doing so He will confirm His power and sovereignty (especially to faithless Israel).

"The opening of Lydia’s heart is regeneration."

No, we are raised with Christ by faith, as has already been firmly established. Being brought to life (regeneration) being thus eliminated as what opened her heart (since she had not yet come to faith in Christ), it's not difficult to deduce that this was God's grace at work in her.

"Again you are in the dubious position of having a man that is in the flesh do something that is pleasing to God when Scripture clearly says that this cannot happen."

The passage you are referring to (Romans 8:8) is talking about living a life pleasing to God, and is no bar to an unregenerate sinner coming to faith. Look at the context,

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Romans 8:9-10)

The Holy Spirit does not dwell in those with no faith, nor does Christ dwell in the hearts of those who are yet to believe, and we are certainly not righteous before we come to faith since righteousness is by faith. Therefore one must already be in the faith to be "in the Spirit" and live a life pleasing to God.


The thing with Lydia that I was pointing out was that we are only told that her heart was opened and it was opened in order for her to understand or "hear" the message of the Gospel.

I agree.

Now why would it just be her heart? Why not have all hearts opened so that they could make a decision? If one needs their heart to be opened to understand or "hear", then you would have to believe that all people’s heart will be opened.

I believe that in the presence of God's grace, a sinners are free to receive Christ or reject the counsel of God for themselves. I've said nothing about God opening everyone's hearts or everyone at all times having the gospel revealed to them, as scripture plainly states that God hardens and blinds some.

Paul said...

J.C.

Let me ask you was Lydia in the presence of God's grace before her heart was opened?

BTW, even in context it still does not change the fact that natural man cannot please God.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

The question is a bit ambiguous. I think God shows a kind of grace to all to some extent, though this is obviously not the same as when He allows one to understand the gospel. Of course the context doesn't change the fact that those in the flesh cannot please God, it simply clarifies what the statement means. It shows that those who are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit are those in whom the Spirit of God dwells,

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."

Yet we receive the Spirit by faith,

"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:14)

So then one who does not have the Spirit is yet still in the flesh, and one cannot receive the Holy Spirit (thereby coming out from being in the flesh) except by faith.

Paul said...

J.C.

I addressed this to Ben on another thread. It seems that you guys are arguing similar things so I will post my reply here to you as well.

Ben,

I hope that you get a chance to look at the Greek when it comes to John 5:24,25. What I want to do is look at verse 24 right now. Here is the verse
-Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but has passed from death unto life.

This is a case where the English may not do justice to the text. We know that heareth and believeth are singular present active participle’s, so we know that they are both in the present tense and we could say hearing and believing instead of how the English makes it seem. So we know that the ones that are presently hearing and believing have eternal life. We know that hath everlasting life is in the singular present active indicative. What the indicative tells us is the absolute certainty of the event, in this case everlasting life. So we now can see that the ones that are hearing and believing posses everlasting life presently and continuously. This of course would be why they do not come into condemnation.

Let us not stop here though, let’s look at the last part now but has passed from death unto life. We see that has passed is in the perfect active indicative form. The perfect tense talks of a completed action that would have occurred in the past, which has continuous results into the present. So we see that they passed from death unto life in the completed past and now are presently hearing and believing. If anything the Greek makes it absolutely clear that regeneration does precede faith.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

There is no contradiction for one who believe that faith precedes regeneration to say, "he who is now believing has passed from death to life," since the he made said transition when he first believed as we are risen with Christ through faith (Colossians 2:12).

Paul said...

J.C.

You are digging yourself a deeper hole by referring to Colossians 2:12. You see if you want to understand verse 12 it helps to look at verse 11. The proper exegetical way to read the beginning of verse 12 is you were circumcised before being buried with Him in baptism it is clear that the circumcision of verse 11 that was made without hands was done before faith.

Anyways, it is probably pointless to go into any more depth since I doubt you will “see” or “hear” what I am saying. So with that I will say goodbye and thanks.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

That's not correct Paul. There is no indication of a sequential series of events here, but a description of the things God does in the redeemed. The circumcision He does is for the putting off of the sin of the flesh,

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ...."

which happens when one is in Christ,

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Romans 6:6)

"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Romans 8:10)

To be both dead to sin and alive because of righteousness as Romans 8 states, one must have faith, for the righteousness of the gospel is by faith (Romans 3:22, 4:5, and so on).

Paul said...

J.C.

Your ignorance of Greek is showing. If you do it properly you will see that the circumcision without hands is done FIRST just as Jesus said in John.

Again, seeing as you do not accept the Greek it is pointless to go on. What we have here is this is what the Greek says and you say "no, that is not right because it makes no sense." Right!

BTW, when you wrote - faith precedes regeneration to say, "he who is now believing has passed from death to life," since the he made said transition when he first believed

Again, your lack of understanding Greek is showing here as well. What the text clearly states is that the passing from death to life preceded coming to faith. It’s like you want to forget that little point, but the text won’t let you.

Anyways, good luck and may I encourage you to study up on your Greek.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

There's nothing in the sentence structure to back up your assertions or rigid chronology. But if those that hear (aorist participle) shall live (future), then hearing precedes being made alive. Likewise if we are already risen (aorist) with Christ through faith, then faith must logically precede being made spiritually alive. The context of scripture as a whole defeats your interpretation as has already been shown: the circumcision of Christ (the putting off of the sin of the flesh) comes because of Christ being in us, and if "your spirit is alive because of righteousness," (Romans 8:10) and righteousness is indeed by faith, then it isn't hard to put together the fact that faith precedes our spirit being alive.

Paul said...

J.C.

The …you were circumcised… in Greek means an action that was in the past and they were just the recipients of the action. The rest of verse 11 and all of verse 12 is subordinate to this. Just as in Jn 5:24 that the ones presently hearing and presently believing are the ones that have passed out of death into life in the past. This all means that regeneration precedes faith. You failure to accept the clear teaching of Scripture is amazing, but your foolishness of saying that your view has already been shown just shows how shallow and ignorant you are on this. I have conclusively shown that a true and accurate reading of Jn. 5:24 and Col. 2:11,12 proves without a doubt that regeneration precedes faith, I have the weight of Scripture to back me up on it.

Seeing as we are in the “this is what it says, no this is what it says” mode it may be best just to move on. In the spirit of love we will just have to agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this thread, perhaps we will interact at some other time and place if God willing. Take care.

Unknown said...

John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

For years I thought that my own faith saved me but later, I have learned that regeneration precedes faith. People are always confused about the relationship of faith to regeneration. Faith before regeneration to me is a "faith system" that leads some to believe that their decision “settles things with God” for all eternity which can lead them to eternal hell. The biblical perspective is that the Holy Spirit is the one who gives assurance, not the evangelist or any other person. Recognizing the Jesus voice is like a sheep recognizing the shepherd's voice. Only the Holy Spirit can prick a person's heart to cause a person to hear Christ's voice. Jesus said in John 10:14-15 "I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." The Holy Spirit, not the Church. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 "For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance (conviction), as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake."

Ephesians 4:30 "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." The Word of God is tuned to speak to our inner conscience and demonstrates with spiritual convictions.

A spiritually dead person cannot will himself to live anymore than a physically dead person can will himself to come back to life. If the dead person (spiritually or physically) is to come back to life he/she will have to be resurrected by God. In the spiritual realm this means he/she must be born from above. A spiritually dead person is without the Holy Spirit, therefore we do not have the "ability" to get saved on our own. We need the Holy Spirit to prick and quicken us to be alive. Without the Holy Spirit is TOTAL DEPRAVITY". The Holy Spirit is the only person that can quicken people to be saved. Through the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of life and light and love. Faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit, without the Holy Spirit, you can't have faith and without the Holy Spirit, you can't be spiritual. If you don't have faith, then you don't have the Holy Spirit. Faith don't come before the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit comes before Faith. Faith will express itself in faith deeds not just words alone

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

The "you were circumcised" in Greek means an action that was in the past and they were just the recipients of the action.

Yes, I wasn't arguing that.

The rest of verse 11 and all of verse 12 is subordinate to this.

The way it's listed is not a chronology though, taken as such the order it presents would be:

circumcised
baptism
faith->being risen with Christ (through faith)
being made alive from sins and trespasses

Going chronologically, being risen with Christ comes after the circumcision mentioned, still throwing a monkeywrench in the gears of regeneration prior to faith, never mind the problems of baptism prior to regeneration. As far as John 5, Jesus is speaking of those who already believe, saying that they have passed from death to life, not specifying an 'order or operations' for the dynamics that occur in the instant one comes to salvation, but simply describing those who believe now, therefore posing no difficulty for faith prior to regeneration. How they pass from death to life initially He indicates in the very next verse, which states that those who hear shall live. So your assertion concerning John 5:24 is shot down by way of clarification in the very next verse, and your interpretation of Colossians 2 both has no solid contextual support and is flatly contradicted by Romans 8.

"But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness." (Romans 8:10)

So if our spirit is alive because of righteousness, then logically, are you asserting that righteousness also precedes faith?

Paul said...

J.C.

Are we reading the same text, I wonder because of this - being risen with Christ comes after the circumcision mentioned, still throwing a monkeywrench in the gears of regeneration prior to faith,- What?

Do you even know what we are discussing? Of course I say that circumcision precedes being risen with Christ and faith. That is what we have been going back and forth on. As for your perceived problem of baptism, do you actually think it is talking of the physical baptism? Your view has more problems than I first thought.

As for John 5, you saying there is no chronological order does not make it so. In fact the Greek makes it readily apparent that there is an order and that is regeneration preceded faith. You are right that it is talking about believing now and hearing now, but the passing out of death into life happened first. This is crystal clear from the Greek. As for your Romans 8 again what? If Christ is in you, your body is dead, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. How does that address the faith comes first again? I would completely agree with that statement, if Christ is in you your body is dead. Wow! This exegesis by you leaves me dumbfounded. It would probably help you a great deal if you actually would read the text.

Oh well, it seems that I am not able to see what you are saying and you can not see what I am saying so goodbye!

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Paul,

I did look over the use of perfect tenses in Greek, the construct used in John 5:24 does not necessitate that "passed from death to life" (perfect tense) precede "believe" (present participle). A similar grammatical construct is used in 1 John 5:10,

"...he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

Here, "believeth" is also present participle, and "hath made" is perfect tense; the wording is not indicating that one who does not believe must have made God out to be a liar first, for the very next statement indicates that his unbelief is the means by which he does so. Of course it wasn't that hard to figure out the logic behind the tense. Take for hypothetical example a paranoid king who believes all of his advisors are plotting against him, so he invites them to a feast; it is not a problem in tense if in a moment of time he states, "everyone who is eating at this table has been poisoned." Their being poisoned would not logically have needed to precede their eating, and in fact the order of precedence is likely the opposite. Likewise when the Lord states that "everyone who is believing has passed from death to life," it produces no logical contradiction with the fact that we are risen with Him through faith.

As for Colossians 2, our being risen with Christ is aorist tense, i.e. something that has already occurred for those now believing, not the future resurrection. This is then talking about being brought to spiritual life - regeneration - through faith.

Paul said...

J.C.

Let me see if I get your point. The ones that are presently believing what God has said in the past are the ones that have the testimony in their heart and the ones that are not presently believing what God has said in the past do not have His testimony in their heart; because he has not believed the testimony that God has given about His Son. It appears that they do not believe what God has said in the past about His Son and have called God a liar. So yes they make God to be a liar by not believing what he has said in the past about His Son. The wording tells me that they think that God is a liar and they do not believe the testimony about His Son.

Again, this does not help you in anyway when it comes to Jn 5:24. Just like in Colossians the “circumcision without hands”, which by the way is regeneration, preceded all other things and is the cause for faith.

Look man, you obviously think that you are right and I think that I am right. You think that you have the Greek on your side and I think that I do. Something tells me that you will keep thinking your way and I will keep thinking my way, so goodbye.

Wyatt Roberts said...

Phil (or anyone else who cares to comment):

I have a nephew who is severely retarded. He is thirteen years old and cannot feed himself. He does not speak, but occasionally grunts or squeals or sometimes, inexplicably, lays on the floor and laughs.

Can you please help me understand in what sense he is a slave to sin? What evil, exactly, is he in bondage to?

If it is your view that my nephew is presently totally depraved and alienated from God, wherein does the hope of his reconciliation lie?

Ben said...

Unless I miss the point it does appear that 1 John 5:10 bolsters Paul's case. It seems that these people do not believe because they have made God to be a liar first and that is why they do not believe it now. It is not like these people believed God in the past and now they think that this testimony is a lie so in this case God must be lying, rather it seems that they think that God is a liar and have always thought this and that is why they do not believe him now.

As to the Colossians passage, that seems a bit to ambiguous for either one of you to make a definitive case on.

Phil Johnson said...

Wyatt Roberts: "If it is your view that my nephew is presently totally depraved and alienated from God, wherein does the hope of his reconciliation lie?"

I'm on the road and unable to answer in detail, but Spurgeon answered your questions (exactly the same way I would) in his sermon titled "Infant Salvation." Check it out.

We'll probably take up the issue of infants and people who are severely disabled before this series on depravity is finished. Those who want to discuss that issue will need to wait until it comes up in a post. Please don't turn this thread into a referendum on that subject. But Wyatt's questions are good ones and Spurgeon's sermon (linked above )both answers them succinctly and gives a preview of where I'll eventually go with that subject. If someone has a different point of view and wants to argue about it, please hold that thought until it's the topic of one of my posts.

Thanks.

Paul said...

Ben,

Thank you for seeing that the appeal to 1 John 5:10 only furthers my point. I am only sorry that I was not as clear as you were in explaining it. I will stick with my Colossians 2:11,12, but I fear that even that I may not have expressed to the best of my ability. We must keep in mind what Paul was trying to show the Colossians and that is that they have been given fullness in Christ (verse 10). In the next several verses he tells them how they came to this fullness. He talks about the circumcision done without hands, which to me is referencing the spiritual circumcision and contrasting it with the circumcision of the flesh. It seems that there were people telling the Colossians that they needed to be circumcised and other things to be a true follower. Paul is setting them straight, by reminding them that they have been already circumcised in spirit and the rest of verse 11 and 12 give more detail of this. We find that the reason that they were circumcised is to put off the body of flesh, which we should probably assume to be referencing the spiritual body. He then goes on to tell us who did or performed this work on them by telling them it was done by Christ. One thing that really stands out in all of this is that in this whole process the Colossians were completely passive. They played absolutely no role in this. We know by verb and participle rules that the “having been buried” refers back to the “you were circumcised” in verse 11. We see that after being circumcised without hands that the Colossians were then “buried with him in baptism” and that they were then subjectively “raised with him through faith”. All of this shows that without the circumcision without hands being done first that the Colossians would not have been raised through faith because their faith is the direct result of the circumcision.

What J.C. would have us believe is that regeneration is the meritorious act done by having faith. What the Scriptures say though is that faith is the result of having been regenerated. I doubt that he will see it now, but I am glad that some others are able to see that his use of Scripture is wrong and that his poor attempt to try and make a counter case using 1 John 5:10 only further proved his error.

Arminian said...

Ben said:

"Unless I miss the point it does appear that 1 John 5:10 bolsters Paul's case. It seems that these people do not believe because they have made God to be a liar first and that is why they do not believe it now. It is not like these people believed God in the past and now they think that this testimony is a lie so in this case God must be lying, rather it seems that they think that God is a liar and have always thought this and that is why they do not believe him now."

I think you do miss the point. It is not believing that makes GHod out to be a liar. This is proven by the fact that we are told in the verse the cause of making God a liar, "because he has not believed". The Greek is clearly on JC's side. Much more could be said actually about how tenses and pareticples relate in Greek, supporting JC's case much more. But I will leave it there since for now.

Ben said...

Arminian,

I do not know Greek or anything about tenses and participles and how they work in Greek, but it seems that this testimony that is being referenced in this verse has already been given. It seems that the ones that are believing are the ones that have this testimony in their heart, now is this referring to the Holy Spirit being in the believer?

If we see it that way then it seems that these non-believers have made God to be a liar, not only now but also in the past. The reason given is that they did not believe the testimony of God in the past and they do not believe it now. If I understood Paul correctly, then his point was that they already believed God to be a liar. It goes back to what I said, it is not like this group was believing in God in the past and now do not accept the testimony that He has given about His Son. It seems that they do not believe because they already view God as a liar. It would be like someone trying to tell me something when I already thought of them as a liar, would I believe them? Probably not. It seems that what J.C. is saying is that what is happening in this verse is that they do not believe the testimony right now and in not believing it now that somehow God must be lying now. That does not seem to flow from what I read in English. I am sure that you guys can get into the Greek and do all that mumbo jumbo stuff that you guys do, but it seems simple to me in plain ol English, at least to me:)

J.C. Thibodaux said...

You did indeed miss the point Ben, as did Paul. Paul was arguing that the wording of John 5:24 necessitates that being brought to life precedes faith. 1 John 5:10 employs the same tenses as John 5:24, which by Paul's argument would end up implying that one making God out to be a liar must logically precede disbelieving.

What J.C. would have us believe is that regeneration is the meritorious act done by having faith.

Incorrect, regeneration is performed by God after one has faith, testified to by the fact that we are risen with Christ through faith as Colossians 2 states, it is not based on merit.

Arminian said...

Ben said: "I do not know Greek or anything about tenses and participles and how they work in Greek, but it seems that this testimony that is being referenced in this verse has already been given. It seems that the ones that are believing are the ones that have this testimony in their heart, now is this referring to the Holy Spirit being in the believer?"

***I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. But I don't think the text is referring to the Holy Spirit as the testimony, but the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives, as do the water and the blood, and this testimony is that Jesus is the Son of God. But it is intesting that you mention the possibility of the Spirit being in the believer, since the Spirit is unquestionably received by faith (faith precedes regeneration).

Ben said: "If we see it that way then it seems that these non-believers have made God to be a liar, not only now but also in the past. The reason given is that they did not believe the testimony of God in the past and they do not believe it now. If I understood Paul correctly, then his point was that they already believed God to be a liar. It goes back to what I said, it is not like this group was believing in God in the past and now do not accept the testimony that He has given about His Son. It seems that they do not believe because they already view God as a liar. It would be like someone trying to tell me something when I already thought of them as a liar, would I believe them? Probably not. It seems that what J.C. is saying is that what is happening in this verse is that they do not believe the testimony right now and in not believing it now that somehow God must be lying now. That does not seem to flow from what I read in English. I am sure that you guys can get into the Greek and do all that mumbo jumbo stuff that you guys do, but it seems simple to me in plain ol English, at least to me:)"

***Honestly, it is hard to see how your view is clear. First, let me address the Greek issue. You act as if the Greek does not matter, but I thought that there was a aclaim being made that the Greek demanded taking faith as prior to regeneration (not necessarily by you, but in thr discussion you responded to, and then I responded to you). That is simply not true and can be easily proved by reference to Greek grammatical rules. I have not bothered to do that because I was focuing on your comments. But also, it makes little sense to think that Greek doesn't matter for interpreting a document written in Greek. You may be reading it in translation, but it does not seem reasonable to say that since the English translation suggests this understanding to me, that is what must be IF GREEK GRAMMAR COUNTERS THAT. But it could be that you are saying regardless of whether Greek allows for the unbelief to precede making God a liar in 1 John 5:10 or not, the actual context suggests that it does not.

But then that is where it is hard to see that your view accords with the text. It does not matter at all whether the group believed in God in the past or not. In fact, they may well have since they seem to be a group within the church turned to heresy and so left the church. But I don't want to get hung up on that at all, since it does not even matter for the point at hand. The text says they don't beleieve, and that those who don't believe have made God a liar because they have not believed. You seem to be separating present unbeliefe from past belief. But the text does not make any distinction. "Because they have not believed" explains how they have mad God a liar, by not believing him. The text does not speak of them believing God to be a liar, but of them, literally, making God a liar. Now obviously they are not making God lie. So making him a liar means making him out to be, acting as if he is lying. And this is accomplished by not believing him. Not believing him is what makes him out to be a liar. In fact some translations actually translate that they have made God a liar "by not believing".

There are points of Greek that arise here. But I will leave them except to say that if you look at your English translation, it does not say, "anyone who does not believe the testimony right now", that is, it does not restrict the unbelief to the present. That reflects the Greek there and its use of what is called a substantive participle. Anyway, take an English example. "Anyone who does not believe what I am saying has insulted me, because he has not believed me". In such a sentence, there is no suggestion that insulting you brought about not believing you. Rather, not believing you is how he insulted you. He insulted you by not believing you. Or how about: "Anyone who does not believe me has treated me as a liar, because he has not believed me." Oh there is much that can be said from Greek on this, but again, I will hold off for now since you seem to want to stay away from it.

What you're saying seems hard to follow partly because in the part of 1 John 5:10 we are discussing we have two things, (1) not believing and (2) making God a liar. The argument is whether not believing makes God a liar or making God a liar leads to not believing. And the text iteslf indicates which causes which. It says they have made God a liar because they have not believed his witness about the Son. You seem to want to take "making God a liar" = "believing God is a liar", but the text only talks about believing or not believing God, his testimony. So making God a liar has reference to an act that treats him as a liar, makes him out to be a liar, implies that he is a liar.

Ben said...

Here is how my simple mind understands the English version that I read.

“I have sent my son so that if you believe in him you will have life”

“I don’t believe that”

“Why?”

“Cause I think you are a liar”

“What makes you say that I am a liar?”

“Cause I not believe what you said about your son”

“Why would you not believe what I said about my son?”

“Cause you’re a liar”

Do you see what I mean? The reason they do not believe the testimony that was given is because they think that God is a liar. Would you believe a liar? I wouldn’t, but that could just be me. You are right that I would not want to talk about the Greek, but the reason is cause I don’t know it. What I do know though is that I can get the gist of it by looking at my English Bible or if I am adventurous even looking at different English translations to get a better feel of it.

Arminian said...

Ben said: ^^^"Here is how my simple mind understands the English version that I read.

“I have sent my son so that if you believe in him you will have life”

“I don’t believe that”

“Why?”

“Cause I think you are a liar”

“What makes you say that I am a liar?”

“Cause I not believe what you said about your son”

“Why would you not believe what I said about my son?”

“Cause you’re a liar”

Do you see what I mean? The reason they do not believe the testimony that was given is because they think that God is a liar. Would you believe a liar? I wouldn’t, but that could just be me."^^^

***The problem is that you seem to be reading into what is going on in the text. Let me give you the same type of logical outlien you have given and see if you do not agree that it aheres much more closely to the text of 1 John 5:10.

“I have sent my son so that if you believe in him you will have life”

“I don’t believe that”

“Then you have made me a liar"

"Why?”

“Because you have not believed what I have said about my Son. Not believing me makes me out to be a liar; you are acting as if I am a liar.”

Do you see what I mean? The text keeps the focus on what the unbelievers actions: they do not believe what God says about Jesus, they have made God a liar, and the reason they made God a liar is because they do not believe what he said about Jesus. That is what is explicitly said in the text, even in English. But you seem to be reading in a lot more background that what is warranted by the simple logic and flow of the text. And as I said, you seem to be separating the first state of unbelief from the second mention, but they are clearly the same, having reference to not believing God's testimony about Jesus. The "because they have not believed God's testimony" is given as the reason they have made him a liar. But you seem to want to read it in the very opposite fashion from the text as somehow affirming that they did not believe what God said about the Son because they believed him to be a liar. But that is not said at all. It is not that it is an incoherent thought, but that this text is not saying that. It is affirming an equally coherent thought--they made God a liar becasue they did not believe him, that is, they made him out to be a liar by not believing him.

Paul said...

All this verse says is that the unbelief of the testimony and the making God a liar happened in the past and it is carried into the present. Just like Jn.5:24, they have crossed over from death to life in the past, while in the present they are experiencing the effect of it by hearing and believing. What they fail to take into account is that not only is making God a liar in the past, but so is the “reason/cause” that they have made God a liar. It is all referencing a past event/action. This does nothing to bolster their view, in fact it only re-enforces the monergistic view. Something tells me that they will not see it and seeing that they must have the last word I will let bid them adieu.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

What they fail to take into account is that not only is making God a liar in the past, but so is the “reason/cause” that they have made God a liar.

The reason/cause for unbelievers making God out to be a liar is also stated as a present participle, just as "heareth" and "believeth" are in John 5:24. In other words, the structure, "Whoever [present participle], [perfect tense verb]" does not imply that what is spoken of in perfect tense necessarily precedes the entirety of action denoted by the participle (e.g. whoever believes not has made God a liar), but simply that whoever is performing the participle now has done/experienced the perfect tense verb.

Magnus said...

If I could put my .02 in, with my limited Greek what I see John 5:24 saying is that the ones that are hearing and believing presently are the ones that have passed out of death into life. When I see but has passed out of death into life I naturally ask myself who is this referring too? It seems to be referencing the ones presently hearing and believing. As far as I can tell this verse does not tell us the WHY some are hearing and believing, it just tells us that they ones that are hearing and believing have passed out of death into life.

I wonder though if you guys are even aware of what you want your point to be? I’m know Dr. Phil, but it seems that this whole dialogue of yours has been completely unproductive and only fostered animosity between the two of you. I’m all for hearty debate and questioning one another’s views, but should it not be done with a Christian spirit? The idea that this verse or any single verse can bring your differing theological views to rubble seems… silly. While I am content to sit on the sidelines most of the time and just try to learn from wiser men than me, it frustrates me when a thread can be completely hijacked and 2 or more folks go of on their own personal crusade.

Unknown said...

I am glad you are opening up the discussion on this topic. I prefer the term "Total Corruption." In modern usage, corruption emphasizes that our nature is what is stained by sin, while "depravity" tends to emphasize our actions.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 264 of 264   Newer› Newest»