Daffy Duck and Total Depravity

While responding in a recent comment stream to an article in SBC Today, one commenter ("T.R.") suggested that a blog written by Chris Roberts regarding total depravity was so convincing (http://www.seektheholy.com/2012/06/08/why-god-must-first-change-the-heart/) that there was no argument available in response.  The very first point of the blog in question was that Genesis 6:5 and the story of Noah shows that men’s hearts are totally depraved.  Roberts used Hebrews 11:7 to show that Noah was one of the elect and he further used Ephesians 2:8-9 to show how Noah could only have been elect by God’s gift of faith.

Genesis 6:5 (ESV)
5  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

Hebrews 11:7 (ESV)
7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. 

Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9  not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

In what follows, I reproduce my response (with a few edits for clarity as a stand-alone piece) to the challenge to respond to Roberts' blog post linked above:

T.R.  I did read Chris’ post.  It’s well-written and a clear articulation of the Calvinist view.  It’s biblical and thoughtful.  And for me, it is uncompelling.  There’s far too much in his post to respond to in a single blog comment.  But just to assure other readers who may still be forming their views that there are answers to each point, I will respond to the first regarding Noah.  I say this because I do not expect to change your view T.R. or Chris’ view, and I do not expect you to change mine.  I didn’t form my beliefs overnight, and I suspect you didn’t either. 

The righteousness of Noah completely destroys the argument Chris is making.  Hebrews 11:7, which he quotes, clearly says that Noah was considered righteous, because he believed God.  There is not one hint here about particular election or monergistic regeneration.   Chris jumps to Ephesians 2:8-9 to prove his point, but certainly he knows that his interpretation will be hotly contested and rejected as a proof text for his order of salvation.  As that great theologian Daffy Duck said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1hZGDaqIw ), what we have here is ”Pronoun Trouble”.   I’m no Greek scholar, but those who are tell me the Greek of Ephesians 2:8-9 does not demand that faith is the gift of God (rather than salvation).  I don’t believe there are many people who arrive at the Calvinist interpretation (that faith is the gift rather than salvation) without being influenced beforehand to see it.  At best for the Calvinist view, Ephesians 2:8-9 is neutral on the order of salvation.

Note a following verse regarding  Noah, Genesis 7:1, where God says that he has “found” or “seen” (from the Hebrew ra‘ah – to see)  Noah to be righteous.  Why didn’t he say he made Noah righteous?  Am I saying that Noah was righteous because of his actions?  No.  As the verse Chris referenced (Hebrews 11:7) clearly points out, he was righteous because he believed God.  Ultimately, it is the same for us.  We believe what God tells us about ourselves, that we are sinners.  That we can’t live up to God’s standards.  That we can’t save ourselves.  That only Jesus can.  We turn from our sin, believe in Christ, and God counts us righteous.

Chris’ strongest proof for Total Depravity in this section is Genesis 6:5 – that every intention and inclination of the heart was evil, yet that verse still leaves us lacking.  For the sake of argument, let’s grant that this expression was intended to be literal and not a figurative statement about the general state of man.  Let’s further grant that if every thought is wrong, every action is wrong as well.  Where does it follow that because man’s heart has become totally depraved it must necessarily be this way?  Is not the whole point of the passage to show that though God started man out in perfection, not only did man sin, but he sinned more and more to the point that he was totally consumed by sin.  Every child who reads Genesis gets this.  Even the Calvinist friendly ESV titles this section of Chapter 6 as “Increasing Corruption on Earth”.  That’s quite a statement from a Reformed-leaning translation.  If man increased in sin, then he wasn’t totally depraved from the fall.  You can’t get more depraved if you already totally depraved!

If man sinned more and more, there must have been a state in which he sinned less.  The story of Cain and Abel points that out.  Abel made the right choice.   God accepted his offering.  Cain did not.  God showed him his sin and encouraged him to forsake it.  This is one of those spots where a Calvinist view of depravity requires real hermeneutical gymnastics and interpolation to support its position (also later in Chris’ work), because a plain reading of the text just doesn’t do it. 

No, far from supporting the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity, the Genesis 6 account shows something different.  It shows that there were individuals who, though still sinful, were not totally depraved (in a Calvinistic sense) as shown by the examples of Abel and Noah.  If a Calvinist here rebuts with claims that these individuals were clearly elect as shown by their actions, they have entered into a circular argument for which I have no other response.

Regarding Chris’ other points, I see more of the same.  Chris strings together many verses which do clearly speak to Universal Depravity from which he infers Total Depravity.  It seems to me Calvinism goes farther than Scripture warrants.  This is why I reject much of the teaching of Calvinism.

Dead Man Walking

The soteriology wars are heating up as Southern Baptists react to the document released May 31 titled: “A Statement of the TraditionalSouthern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”.  It’s been interesting to watch the back and forth.  It was one of these discussions that prompted this post.  One commenter on a blog asked an honest and insightful question of Calvinists:  Is there one lynch-pin that you see for your soteriology that is critical and upon which the system would fall if it were removed?  There were various answers, but I think there is at least one lynch-pin to Calvinism that I want to talk about in this post.

I believe the understanding of exactly how the word "dead" is to be interpreted in Scripture is a core concept in Calvinism.  How you understand particularly Paul’s usage of “dead” impacts your view of sin and atonement.  How many times have I heard a Calvinist brother say to me, "Paul tells us we are completely, spiritually dead.  Dead men don't give themselves life!  Dead men don't do anything!"  What did Paul mean in Ephesians 2:1 when he said, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world…”?  I believe there is a risk in Calvinistic interpretation to dive right in to understanding certain words – like “dead” – in light of their systematic theology rather than stepping back and seriously looking at the context.

How much can really be said about what Paul intended about being dead in Ephesians 2?  What did Paul mean?  Who was he writing to and what was he trying to say?  He was writing to Ephesians, gentiles most of whom had come from a pagan background.  But these gentile believers were also influenced by the Jewish converts around them.  That was the occasion of his writing.  In Chapter 1, Paul is explaining to them that it is no accident that God is accepting gentiles – on the contrary, it was a part of God’s plan from the beginning of the world!

Paul continues on in Chapter 2 to give them more understanding of how and why they have been saved.   I find it interesting that he said “…And you were dead in the trespasses and sins  in which you once walked, following the course of this world.”  How could they be dead while they walked (translated "lived" in some versions)?  I believe, as in other places, he’s using death to speak metaphorically to describe the effects of their sin and transgressions on their life. 

What can be said confidently about this verse?  Only that Paul is drawing a sharp distinction between the condition of being a believer as opposed to being separated from God.  He’s saying that before they were in Christ, they did not have real life.  What did that entail?  Paul does not tell us.  We get no details of what he means by the use of “dead” in 2:1.  From this point, each of us has to build our Biblical case for what Paul meant.  Paul does tell us that we are raised up with Christ and he talks about being saved - implying that while we are still dead in trespasses and sins we are lost.  That's obvious enough, but I see no hint of the Calvinist idea of total depravity. The Calvinist fits this verse within his system and states that there was no God-given spark, no ability to sense God’s drawing, no spiritual capacity whatsoever prior to regeneration.  The Calvinist excludes metaphor altogether here, and appears to fit the verse to a systematic theology.

Why?  Why do Calvinists ascribe elements of “death” to this verse that Paul never delineates?  Why do they not do the same in Romans 6:2 where Paul tells us we are dead to sin?  Why not use the same characteristics?  These would necessarily include the inability to respond to sin, a life of sinless perfection to be consistent with a Calvinist view of death as used in Ephesians – why isn’t this interpretation correct?  Maybe because it is clear that Paul uses death as a metaphor there to show a truth.  Why cannot Calvinists even fathom that death as a metaphor may apply in Ephesians 2?   It appears that it’s because metaphor doesn’t fit the system.  If Total Depravity means not one molecule of our being has any goodness remaining due to the fall, then “dead” must mean complete lack of any spiritual content whatsoever.  It’s proscribed, not derived.  I know, I know – the Calvinist will flip to Romans 5 and show me we are all born guilty because of Adam’s sin. 

But is that what Romans 5 says?  Not when I read it.  All I can say for certain is that sin entered the world with Adam and the result is that we all now participate in it.  That’s all the Scripture says.  Doesn’t say I’m born guilty.  Doesn’t say every thought, action and motive is wholly, completely depraved.  All this passage tells us without question is that we are all sinners, we are all guilty, and it all started with Adam.  In fact, if you are going to take these verses in a Calvinistic understanding of total depravity, you’ll have to wind up as a Universalist!  That should make some Calvinist heads explode about now! 

In Romans 5:15, Paul says “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.”  To be consistent, if “many died” here means every single human being is automatically guilty of Adam’s sin by lineage (not by action), then why wouldn’t “abounded for many” in the latter part of the verse mean every human being as well?  There is no basis to make a distinction here defining “many” as “all” in the first part of the verse and as “some” in the latter.  In context, it seems clear to me that we are on shaky ground when we go beyond three things in these verses:

1) Adam brought sin into the world,
2) We are all guilty of it and
3) Christ has paid for it! 

I see clear unlimited atonement here – Paul is making the case for sufficiency of Christ’s death in these verses.  Anything more is extrapolation.

So what does Paul mean when he says we are “dead” in our sins and trespasses without Christ?  What we can say with confidence is that we are like the proverbial death row inmates.  We are “dead men walking” in that though we are alive, a certain fate awaits us if we don’t find someone to pardon us.  Paul is telling us we are ultimately dead without Christ.  If the Calvinist interpretation of what Paul means by "dead" falls, then their concept of total depravity falls.  If total depravity falls, then the whole system falls.  Is the Calvinist wrong?  Only God knows, but I would certainly hold those views tentatively in light of what Scripture actually says.  There are too many blanks that have been filled in by the "system" from my standpoint.