While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

[Received]

I ask this:

How can man, who is born without faith and incapable of initiating faith on his own, be demanded by God, who is the only one capable of granting faith, to do something he cannot do?

Is it not like -- asking a man without legs to dance?

"You -- dance!"
"But, I can't; I need some help; help me and I can dance."
"No -- you dance, or you will be punished!"
"For not doing what I cannot do?"
"No -- for disobeying me."
"Square circles, anyone?"

Can you blame a bullet for not going different than the path it was predestined to by virtue of laws of physics?

Of course, you may say that not all are commanded to repent -- only the elect. But, still, the failure to follow a command is what brings about punishment -- and the punishment of God is Hell-fire; so, because the non-elect is not commanded, he therefore gets off without punishment, and -- what? This also makes the implication of Jesus that not all will be saved rather strange: repent or be punished! -- but I just say punished for the heck of it, because nobody really is going to get punished, after all.

Please, try and keep the responses as air-tight and short as possible; this just helps keep things from getting out of control, chasing rabbits, etc.

Cheers,

John

 

[SoaringEagle]

Ac 17:30 - Show Context Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, Re 2:21 - Show Context And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. So we see that Jesus even gave her time to repent. What why would He do so if she wasn't one on the hand picked ones for salvation? Did Jesus not know? Time is a demonstration of God's mercy. He prolongs some's time on earth to bring them to repentance. It makes no sense that God would command all to repent, then decree the ones that wind up in hell to not repent.

Just food for thought since we're on the subject. SoaringEagle

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

God rightly demands perfection. For Him to accept anything less is for Him to deny His own worthiness. When man was created, we had a righteousness worthy for communion with Him. What right do we have to expect Him to now settle for something imperfect? Those He enables will repent of their sins and turn to Jesus, who lived for us, died for us and rose for us.

Jesus commanded Lazarus to come from the tomb and Lazarus was enabled to do so. Jesus commanded the lame to walk the blind to see and the sick to be healed and they were enabled by the power of God.

Consider John 5:2-9, where Jesus healed the man during the Sabbath. I'll provide the context in the KJV for you.

2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

7The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

9And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

Was it a hateful thing that Jesus healed this man and not all of the others at the pool? No. He healed this man for the same reason He does anything. He did it for His glory. He enabled one and did not enable others. The same is true of Total Depravity. We are all unable to rise up and follow Him, and yet He shows mercy on some who do follow Him. This is done by the power of God and not of man. Again, it is by the power of God because He enables those who would follow Him.


The fact that all are commanded to repent and believe, even though many will not do so, is not an injustice to anyone. If it were, Jesus would be guilty of healing one man and not the others. Jesus would be guilty of sin if that were the case.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Let me defend the gospel of Jesus Christ before the question is even brought up. The question would be about the justice of God. Is God just in choosing some?

Romans 9:14-16

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy.



Randy

 

[Received]

Soaring, you state a passage that works only with a non-Calvinist conception, not a Calvinist one -- the Calvinist will assert that, as stated, man cannot save himself by his own initiative, but is completely dependent on God who grants men the capacity to have faith. Demanding such individuals to repent is as pointless as commanding a bullet to contradict the laws of physics!

I think the same argument would go for you, Coffee.

seeking, who are you to rashly conclude God must be as you interpret Him from the scriptures, while simultaneously upholding a contradiction that you haven't attempted to resolve? That is, who are you to uphold a contradictory God and call this contradiction a non-contradiction because you feel your interpretation of scripture negates such a contradiction? It doesn't. Even a lunatic can interpret God's plans falsely and conclude that they are therefore "just" and "scriptural" precisely because he interpreted it as such. This is a very cunning method of begging the question.

 

[reformedfan]

nevertheless, God's sovereignty in election doesn't make the command to obey the Gospel any less a command. After the fall, God didn't retract the covenant of works.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

That's right He didn't. We are still bound to follow our creator. If it were His fault that we could not measure up, your arguments would be valid. As it is, we must rely on the grace of God to provide the willingness to follow Him. He is glorified as the benefactor of our salvation from beginning to end.

 

[reformedfan]

hmmmm...you have a familiar sentiment in your thing under your name, received; are you great chums with CNC? Could you wear him on yer hand, if you were so inclined?

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Soaring, you state a passage that works only with a non-Calvinist conception, not a Calvinist one -- the Calvinist will assert that, as stated, man cannot save himself by his own initiative, but is completely dependent on God who grants men the capacity to have faith.

Don't all orthodox Christians believe this?

 

[frumanchu]

I ask this:

How can man, who is born without faith and incapable of initiating faith on his own, be demanded by God, who is the only one capable of granting faith, to do something he cannot do?

Is it not like -- asking a man without legs to dance?

"You -- dance!"
"But, I can't; I need some help; help me and I can dance."
"No -- you dance, or you will be punished!"
"For not doing what I cannot do?"
"No -- for disobeying me."
"Square circles, anyone?"

No, it's not like that. It would be more like this:

"You -- dance!"
"I don't want to dance."
"If you will dance, I will give you great reward."
"OK, I'm dancing" *marches in place* "That means you owe me a reward."
"You are not dancing, you are mocking me. He who does not dance will not be rewarded, but will be kicked out of the dance hall."
"Who are you to demand I dance?"
"I'm your Creator. Now dance."
"I don't want to, and I don't believe a Creator would require His creation to dance. Therefore I'm not going to dance."
"Suit yourself. Out you go!"

Can you blame a bullet for not going different than the path it was predestined to by virtue of laws of physics?

Ban analogy. God governs the laws of physics.

Of course, you may say that not all are commanded to repent -- only the elect.

I certainly wouldn't. Neither would any other Reformed person except in error. The command to repent is indiscriminate between elect and non-elect. The response is not.

 

[Received]

Well, well, well, I have been visited by a ghost this morning (and simultaneously, undoubtedly, am a ghost to this person as well) -- frumanchu, nice seeing you. Your existence in this thread (as well as the other replies) gives me a reason to look forward to answering this thread tonight.

Until then --

John

 

[cygnusx1]

No, it's not like that. It would be more like this:

"You -- dance!"
"I don't want to dance."
"If you will dance, I will give you great reward."
"OK, I'm dancing" *marches in place* "That means you owe me a reward."
"You are not dancing, you are mocking me. He who does not dance will not be rewarded, but will be kicked out of the dance hall."
"Who are you to demand I dance?"
"I'm your Creator. Now dance."
"I don't want to, and I don't believe a Creator would require His creation to dance. Therefore I'm not going to dance."
"Suit yourself. Out you go!"

that is about the sum of it brother , and reading your post gave me very mixed feelings , gladness that you put it so well , and sadness that I know men do respond like that.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi Received!

 

[SoaringEagle]

I know it's hard to let go of what you have believed for so long, and hard to take "the whole counsel of God" into consideration and let Scripture interpret Scripture, but when you have preconcieved thoughts and ideas about what Scripture says, you have a tendancy to read those into the text. Now God says He commands all men everywhere to repent, yet those from a reformed position see Him only commanding the elect to do so. So if this is true, that God only commands some, the elect according to a reformed position, then we must not find (ANY) instances or indications in the Word that God commanded some to repent, who ended up in hell.

What must we do to the rich young ruler? He was commanded to sell all, but refused to. Why would God command Him to do something, but decree him to resist His commanding word spoken to Him? I know this happened to Pharoah, but He resisted God's commanding will first, a few times to be exact. Man kind even in their fallen state has the ablility to resist or recieve the Lord. So for God to command someone all throughout their life, and decree them unable to every single time, and then punish them though they never had the chance sound wack. No offense to my reformed brothers and sisters.

The Holy Spirit was ministering through Steven in Acts, and says they resist the Holy Spirit. Will they be held accountable for that, or did God decree them unable to receive and pre ordained them to resist? If I said all men everywhere will be affected, how can you think I mean some? Just some questions in mind thats all. In John, we read as many as recieved Him, He gave them the right to children of God. We can recieve or resist, but this isn't a work or anything we can boast about. We should be thankful that the "grace of God unto salvation has appeared to everyone". Some receive, some don't. It's only grace through faith, not of works..

 

[Received]

hmmmm...you have a familiar sentiment in your thing under your name, received; are you great chums with CNC? Could you wear him on yer hand, if you were so inclined?

CNC? The title is from a song by Elliott Smith (whose picture is my avatar), who is, in my opinion, the greatest of all indie rock and acoustic artists.

No, it's not like that. It would be more like this:

"You -- dance!"
"I don't want to dance."
"If you will dance, I will give you great reward."
"OK, I'm dancing" *marches in place* "That means you owe me a reward."
"You are not dancing, you are mocking me. He who does not dance will not be rewarded, but will be kicked out of the dance hall."
"Who are you to demand I dance?"
"I'm your Creator. Now dance."
"I don't want to, and I don't believe a Creator would require His creation to dance. Therefore I'm not going to dance."
"Suit yourself. Out you go!"

But then we go back to the beginning -- God is asking the created to do something he cannot do in his own power (keeping in mind that dancing is analogous to response by faith), and therefore artificializes the conversation by even commanding him to dance, speaking to him as if he could. It is like me commanding a man with no legs to dance knowing full well that he cannot dance, likewise, God asking a man to respond in faith who can only respond if God allows it is something of a contradiction of implication in commanding him to repent.

 

[Received]

let Scripture interpret Scripture

Not to arbitrarily pick and choose, but this statement, as the center of your point, is something nonsensical. Scripture does not interpret, it cannot interpret itself; we are the ones who interpret, which is to say that interpretation is a capacity of subjectivity. Scripture is an objective record of God's written word; as such, it is necessary to interpret it in order to gain a meaning from it. And so long as this is the case, looking from the perspective of it being interpreted, self-asserted claims of being the correct interpretation are superfluous, precisely because they beg the question, reason in circles.

"As the scripture clearly says, God advocates capital punishment."
"As the scripture clearly says, God is for predestination."
"As the scripture clearly says, men are entirely responsible, and predestination makes room for this responsibility."
"As the scripture clearly says, Pelagius was right."

Do you see the point? Now, you may argue that some of these points are silly and wrong, and on some of these I would agree with you, but the fact that you consider it such implies that you have interpreted it to be so, which implies precisely that your perception has come into play; and who is to say that your perception, being finite, is necessarily right, because you claim it to be so?

Now, to get back to the essence of the argument, I'm not speaking of traditionally controversial theologies, such as works vs. faith, but of the simple question at the beginning, which seems to me to invoke a clear contradiction in reason:

How can man, who is born without faith and incapable of initiating faith on his own, be demanded by God, who is the only one capable of granting faith, to do something he cannot do?

Perhaps this is obscure in the syntax; perhaps we need a rewording. Very well:

How can man, who cannot initiate faith by himself, be demanded by God to initiate this faith by himself (repent), if God is the one who holds this faith? It is, again, like asking a man without legs to dance. It cannot be done; to imply a punishment with such a demand is something contradictory. It isn't simply unjust; it is nonsensical, so far as I see it.

 

[Received]

And hello cygnus!

 

[SoaringEagle]

I guess I see what you are saying. Recieving. I don't see scripture saying God beforehand picked who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I see that this is according to His foreknowledge. I hope you could see that in my posts. I'm not here to really argue and fight, but maybe to discuss and ask a few questions. That's all. By saying that, I am not implying that you or anyone else is doing that, (here to argue and fight). Be blessed, much love to you in the Lord. S.E.

 

[Rick Otto]

The short answer to your question "How?" is...
By way of executing jurisdictional imperative over creation.

It is the same model He instituted with "The Law". It's commands were toward a creature who could not measure up. It was 'situationaly rhetorical' in that it's face value implied a larger fact - man's irredeemable state. It was meant to judge us, condemn us, not provide a stairway to heaven. Our failures are for our instruction. We needed teaching. So He gave us the impossible dream of fulfilling the law.

So in effect, the point of commanding a lump of clay to save itself by works, is in reality a judgement unto condemnation, or else an inspiration unto repentance... depending on your spiritual orietntation.
Romans 1:20 is at least a warrant for anyone denying God's existence & power:
Rom1:20- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

>And Isaiah establishes that God creates evil, & we know from other scriptures that He does it for good reason, out of good motives:
Is45:7- I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
>So He isn't ambivalent about the way things are & His complete control, He simply points out the essential difference between when He creates evil & when man does - motivation! He hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus yet commanded Him thru Moses to 'Let My people GO' - so to speak,-& He put a lying spirit in a prophet's mouth, in Kings.

You're right about this, tho... it IS offensive to us lumps of clay! It realy puts us in our sinful place. It defeats our concept of ourselves as having at least one redeeming a feature... willpower w/which we can use steer ourselves into mercy & grace. It waves in our face the fact that we are spiritualy dead, "zombies" in need of rebirth. It sure makes ME uncomfortable, bro.

 

[Received]

I guess I see what you are saying. Recieving. I don't see scripture saying God beforehand picked who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I see that this is according to His foreknowledge. I hope you could see that in my posts. I'm not here to really argue and fight, but maybe to discuss and ask a few questions. That's all. By saying that, I am not implying that you or anyone else is doing that, (here to argue and fight). Be blessed, much love to you in the Lord. S.E.

You too, friend! I'm not here at all to bicker, but I am here to argue -- in the logical sense. Chesterton has a wonderful saying that goes: "people generally quarrel because they cannot argue," and I have to agree. We're here for our intellectual edification; even if our ideas are wrong, it still helps to have one's own standing tested; it helps with intellectual integrity.