Wednesday, November 23, 2011

TESTING TULIP: Total Depravity/Inability

UPDATE: Please scroll down to the bottom of the Comments & click the link that says "newer" or "newest" on the lower right hand side to see the latest commets. We have now gone beyond 200 comments! 


These articles are open for discussion but only within the terms described in the introduction to the series. If you wish to participate you must adhere to the requirements in order to do so. More information about my thought process and motivations can be found in a more recent post The Implications Don't Matter if it is True.

Monergism.com has this to say about the TULIP doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability).
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
These are the Scriptures that they reference to support these claims.
Genesis 2:15-17;  Romans 5:12;  Psalms 51:5; 1Corinthians 2:14;  Romans 3:10-18; Jeremiah 17:9;  John 6:44;  Ephesians 2:1-10 
Here are the claims they make in point form to explicitly show what claims are being made:
1.  Because of the Fall Man is unable to of himself to savingly believe the Gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. 
2.  The sinner's will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not --indeed he cannot-- choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. 
3.  The Spirit must regenerate (make alive, give a new nature to) the sinner in order that he can come to Christ. 
4. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation, it is the gift to the sinner not the sinner's gift to God. 
The Canons of Dort or the Synod of Dort are the basis of TULIP. The Canons are built on the assumption of the "Eternal Decrees of God" which are not found in Scripture, but assumed to be true based on logical inference from the particular view of the Sovereignty of God demanded by the Canons also TULIP.  NOTE: I have worked and reworked this paragraph trying to be a generous as I can be, while also being faithful to the Calvinist position and giving an objective view of the relationship. The Calvinist would not see this as circular because they see the Eternal Decrees as being the foundation which are understood from the nature of God as they see it revealed in the whole of the Scriptures.

Wayne Grudem has this to say in his Systematic Theology (copyright 1994, Inter-Varsity Press & Zondervan Publishing House):

Of the Providence of God; that God "cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do" (Page 315)

Of the Eternal Decrees of God; "are the eternal plans of God whereby, before the creation of the world, he determined to bring about everything that happens." (Page 332)

Thus while TULIP's view of Total Depravity is focused on Soteriology (the study of Salvation) that man is totally incapable of believing the Gospel the modern system of theology known as Calvinism holds that man is actually incapable of doing anything (good, evil or otherwise) by his own will.

The Canons of Dort statement on the corruption of man.

On this particular topic the Canons include 17 articles or statements. These do not include Scripture references. One can read them at the above link but I will not be responding to them each. The reasons for writing the Canons can be seen in the additional paragraphs which are responses to perceived errors of theology at the time of the writing. The Second Synod of Dort 1618-1619. Most of the articles and paragraphs actually have nothing to do with our discussion because they speak to ideas that are not, have not, nor ever will be presented at this Blog. They are about a different discussion.

That being said, Paragraph 4 adds the following Scripture references in support of the idea that unregenerate man cannot believe. Eph 2:1 & 5; Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Ps 51:17; and Matt 5:6.

Also, Paragraph 5 adds the following in support of "infusing" something into the will of man so that he will believe prior to belief. This is support of the TULIP view of regeneration prior to faith. Jer 31:33; Isa 44:3; Rom 5:5; and finally the church practice of praying "Restore me and I will return" from Jer 31:18.

On page 678 of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology he discusses the idea that "Election based on Something Good in Us (Our Faith) Would Be the Beginning of Salvation by Merit." 

These are the claims of Monergism.com, the Synod of Dort, and Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology with regard to the doctrine of Total Depravity (Inability).  These are the foundational teaching resources of modern Calvinism. If anyone reading is inclined to say that I have "misrepresented" Calvinism then theirs is not the Calvinism of the Calvinists and they should find someone who wants to talk about their own Calvinism. I will be discussing the Calvinism of the Calvinists here. I do not have the energy or the will to chase a moving target. Either the Calvinism of the Calvinists is either biblical or it is not biblical. It is my soul purpose here to find out and demonstrate either possibility as it so happens to be factual.

The last time I looked at TULIP I gave statements on each of the passages cited in the reference document. This time I am not forwarding an alternate view at all so I will only comment on verses that either do or could support each of the claims.

Here we go! 


The Calvinists I interact with, and leading proponent Wayne Grudem all seem to agree that if a person can believe then they have reason to brag. I have always found this hard to understand. Can one brag because they believe the Sky is blue? However, in light of the sort of gospel that must be preached in accordance with Limited Atonement - that Jesus didn't necessarily die for your sins, and so Eternal Salvation may or may not be available to you - now I can at least understand why it would seem reasonable to TULIP believers that a person would have to do something amazing in order to believe. That I understand one potential reason why it may seem to a TULIP believer that one could brag about believing in Christ doesn't make it biblical however. There is no Scripture given as reference so I must simply consider the claim itself. Is faith meritorious?

Romans 4:16 a "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace..." It had to be by faith so that it could be of unmerited favor. It would seem that both the primary concern of TULIP believers, that of stealing glory, praise, or credit from God in the Salvation process by a Believer being able to claim to have believed and also the secondary concern of being able to claim to be better than the person who didn't believe are not concerns which are in accord with the Scriptures.

NOTE: For each of the claims I will review all of the referenced passages, but only comment on those which I can imagine someone might use to support the claim.

Claim 1.  Because of the Fall Man is unable to of himself to savingly believe the Gospel.  The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt.

Gen 2:15-17 contradicts the claim as it indicates that Man would gain the knowledge of good and evil.

1Cor 2:14 is part of the 2nd Chapter of 1st Corinthians. The chapter starts with Paul explaining that he had determined to know nothing among them but Christ and Him Crucified. He goes on in Vs 6 stating that "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature.." Paul continues his thought in 1Cor 3:1-4 where he states. "And I Brethren could not speak to you as spiritual people but as to carnal, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it. And even now you are still not able to receive it; for you are still carnal."  It is clear that the wisdom that cannot be received is explicitly NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For though these new and disorderly Believers were unable to receive the meat of wisdom Paul knew they could receive the message of Christ and Him Crucified. In fact they had already received that message. Acts 18:8 Thus, 1Cor 2:14 actually contradicts Claim 1.

Rom 3:10-18 states that no one does these things. Not that no one is able to do them. It says that no one seeks after God, not that no one can believe the Gospel. Is one saved by grace through seeking? By grace through understanding? No. Eph 2:8-9 says that we are saved by grace through faith.

Jn 6:44 is the problem, Jn 12:32 is the solution. Each use the same word for draw.

Here are some potentially interesting notes:
Jn 6:37 give/grant 1325 All that the Father gives will come
Jn 6:65 give/grant 1325 None can come to Me unless it has been granted.
Acts 11:18 give/grant 1325 They glorified God saying "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life!"  
Jn 6:44 draw 1670 No one can come unless the Father draws him.
Jn 12:32 draw 1670 If I be lifted up, will draw all men.... speaking of the Father drawing because He was explaining why the Father had spoken. 
Clearly Israel had the issue of thinking they were exclusively God's people. We read this over and over again. They thought they were safe because they had a blood line back to Abraham. They were God's Elect Nation. If one was to come to God one had to be converted to Judaism, they had to go through Israel to get to God. Now however, God has granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles and we come to the Father through Christ alone. 

Thus Jn 6:44 does not indicate that one cannot believe the Gospel. It is speaking of the problem of accessibility of God, not ability to Believe in Him.

Eph 2:1-10 can be read in such a way that it sounds like faith is the Gift of God. However, Greek doesn't work like English. Faith is not the gift of God. Salvation that is by grace and accessed through faith is the gift of God. "The Gift of God is Eternal Life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23 not the faith that we have in Him. To see how the Greek works in this passage view this previous article "John Calvin Describes the Faith That Saves."  Here's a diagram that may help.
Faith and Gift are different Genders. Faith cannot be the gift of God.
Thus Eph 2:1-10 does not show that man cannot believe the Gospel.

Gen 6:5, 8:21 talk of the intent or desires of the people's hearts. They do not speak of their ability, but of their intent. Further, we are saved by grace through faith, not by grace through intent or desire.

Jer 31:33 This is about the New Covenant with "The House of Judah and the House of Israel" Jer 31:31-38. The promises here are national. This is not about individual Eternal Salvation at all.

Jer 31:18 is not speaking of regeneration, it is about restoring blessings to the Northern Kingdom. Ephraim is used by the Prophets to indicate and personify the Northern Kingdom. This is also about returning, not about becoming saved.

On the matter of Claim 1

There is no scriptural support for the idea that man cannot savingly believe the Gospel provided by these sources. I am not aware of any passage that would, or could, give credence to this claim.  Man's heart is wicked and deceitful, but it has not been demonstrated how this means that no one can believe the Gospel. 


Claim 2.  The sinner's will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not --indeed he cannot-- choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.

Firstly, one is eternally saved when they receive (or believe, or have faith in, or have trust in) the Gospel found in 1Cor 15:1-11, not by "choosing good over evil." 1Cor 15:1; Acts 18:8

Eph 2:1-5 Most assuredly the one who is still in his sins is dead in them. Gen 2:17 is the warning that this would happen and 2Cor 5:14 is the affirmation of the absolute proof that it did indeed happen. However, the claim is not about if the person is dead or not, it is about if they are in absolute bondage (no free will) to their evil nature. Genesis 6:5 says that the people of the world only desired evil things. Depravity is clearly a biblical truth which many of the passages referenced affirm. Yet do any of them say that people are in complete bondage to their evil nature and are unable to believe the Gospel? Of course no passage says any such thing.

With regards to works the Bible is clear that all our righteousness is like filthy rags. Isa 64:6 Even after we are saved OUR righteousness profits us nothing. We need the righteousness of Christ which is by faith. Phil 3:1-11 So it is true in a sort of way that unsaved men can do no good. Further, even the good that saved people can do is meaningless for right-standing (righteousness) with God; so the point is moot.

Jesus Christ said "Most assuredly I tell you; whoever commits sin is a slave of sin" John 8:34 The Lord did not make distinction between regenerated and unregenerate persons. He said whoever sins is a slave of sin, and He said "most assuredly" so I don't think this is really up for debate.

There are endless examples of God giving instructions and choices to saved and unsaved persons and nations. I am making it a point that this discussion and evaluation will not be about the implications. If Calvinism is biblical then I need to "Suck it up Buttercup!" and accept the implications - no matter if I like them or not. Likewise, if Calvinism is NOT biblical then those who have previously held to it also need to accept whatever implications that brings. That being stated, I find it hard to reconcile a God who "cannot lie" with a God who says "Whoever may" but really means "Only those I regenerate first may." If God gives a choice must be able to respond to that choice, based on the biblical fact that God cannot lie and does not tempt. Tit 1:2; James 1:13

On the matter of Claim 2

None of the referenced passages indicate that the claim is true, further the issue is about a person's ability to believe the Gospel and not "choosing good over evil."


Claim 3. The Spirit must regenerate (make alive, give a new nature to) the sinner in order that he can come to Christ.

It must be noted first that the language here says what the Spirit "must" do. This is because it is a logical inference from the other claims made in the doctrine of Total Depravity. There is not a single verse in the Scriptures that says that the Spirit does regenerate prior to faith. In fact there is not a single passage that says (or even implies) that this "must" happen either.

People must be drawn, and people are drawn. See the notes above under Claim 1 about drawing. Clearly drawing is not being regenerated.

Jer 31:18 is also noted under Claim 1 above.

Scripture says that the Holy Spirit "convinces" or "convicts" the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, not regenerates them so they can believe. John 16:5-11

I am glad to see that the Monergism website rightly notes that regeneration is when God makes someone alive again, imparts life to them, and gives them the New Nature. When the Lord explained Salvation to Nicodemus He told the man about how Moses raised the bronze serpent up and those who looked at it lived. John 3:1-21The Lord of course is referencing Num 21:4-9 where we read "So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived." We see that it was only when the person looked that they lived. Not that they looked after they had been given life.  Both the Lord, and Moses agree. One looks and so lives, not one lives and so looks.

Eph 2:1-10 states that those who are saved have been made alive. It does not state or imply that this happened, or  must happen, prior to faith.


On the matter of Claim 3

This claim is a logical inference of the other claims made by the doctrine of Total Depravity/Inability and is not found in the Scriptures.


Claim 4. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation, it is the gift to the sinner not the sinner's gift to God.

The characterization of faith in the claim is false. Faith is not a "contribution" at all; it is a reception. 1Cor 15:1 Faith is not a gift to God, for it is without merit. Rom 4:16.

As established above under Claim 1 in discussion of Eph 2:8-9, faith is not the gift of God.

Jer 31:33 is discussed above under Claim 1.

On the matter of Claim 4

It is clear that Scripture does not say that God gives people saving faith.


CONCLUSION

Based on my review of the Scriptures referenced by Mongerism.com and those from the other Calvinist sources that I went looking for there is no support for the claims of the doctrine of Total Depravity/Inability.

I hope it will be noted by those reading that I didn't just limit myself to the few passages that Mongergism.com suggested. I actually searched out other credible Calvinist sources to find the strongest support possible for this doctrine. I hope that my Calvinist friends reading will concede that I did not seek to build a Straw-Man to burn. No one building a Straw-Man seeks out MORE support for the opposing position. I am also unaware of any way I could possibly have "misrepresented Calvinism" by simply quoting these highly respected Calvinist resources.

I do not want to propose an alternate theory to the doctrine being discussed, but while the Scriptures say that man is unwilling Mat 23:37-39; Luke 13:34-35; Mat 22:1-14 the Scriptures do not say that man is unable. If man were unable, if he were bound to only do evil, and was not able to know the Truth then he would have excuse at Judgment. Yet God has left man without excuse. Rom 1:18-21

I am thus constrained to report that the doctrine of Total Depravity/Inability as detailed by Monergism.com and the Synod of Dort is not biblical.

I look forward to discussion about these things. I however, do remind all of the rules (and my disclosures) for this discussion and some additional thoughts.


Resources for the discussion below: 

Image 1 Parsing Jn 10:26 - The Lord used "not" twice.



216 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 216 of 216
Nolan said...

Kevin,

"You do not believe in Me because you are unable to believe in Me." (your interpretation of Jn 10:26

Could it be that some in this group (Jews) that Jesus was speaking to in John 10:26 and other places be among those that are hardened in Romans 11?

Lou,

I don't know if you caught it, in an earlier comment but I asked you a question. It is related to some degree to the subject we are discussing. I am surely not wanting to debate your answer, if I disagree. It would be helpful for me to understand that part of your soteriology though.


I have been watching the discussion between you and Melissa. I haven't been able to discuss as much as I would like. That is probably a good thing. I am studying other things and have put them down to engage in this thread. I would still like to interact as I can without getting too sidetracked on the other things I am studying.

As you know, the fact that Melissa and I are unable to prove or defend a system of theology, that in and of itself doesn't make it false and unbiblical. It may indicate our lack of biblical knowledge and our ineptitude to defend a given Biblical doctrine.

Nolan

Melissa said...

I do not know why so many translations have "because" there... perhaps there is a cover up of biblical proportions!!! Maybe John MacArthur's next book will be called "SO!" as a cool follow up to Slave??? hehehehehehe!!! I couldn't resist. Sorry.. that is just a joke. :)


Okay, that WAS funny!

I will read through the comments in the morning. I was able to glance tonight but will have time to devote to them in the morning before school.

Kevl said...

Hi Nolan,

I wasn't able to reply before now.

There's two reasons why Rom 11 doesn't apply to these people. First, it is before Christ's Triumphal Entry, so Israel had not actually rejected Her King yet. Second, the same problem still exists, if Christ was explaining why they couldn't believe, it is irrational of Him to then tell these same people to examine Him so that they may believe.

Sorry this is short... don't mistake that for dismissal - good enough question, just a busy day. :)

Kev

Kevl said...

All,

A new friend of mine who is a Free Grace Believer and also holds to a doctrine of Total Inability is currently reading this thread and will comment at some point. I told Glen that I thought his view was unique, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say here.

:)

Kev

Melissa said...

Is you friend still going to post?

Kevl said...

I believe so Melissa, he just started reading on Tuesday and this is a HUGE conversation so... I'm not sure when he will comment.

I'm about to post an answer I gave to my good friend Fred (who I do street evangelism with weekly) about Jn 12:39.

Kev

Kevl said...

All,

I received a phone call from my good friend Fred who is a fellow preacher of Christ here in my home city. We work together weekly on the streets passing tracts and telling people about the Lord.

After some preliminary questions about what I would accept as proof of Total Inability, (I love the guy but he's a bit of a scammer!!! hahahaha I just wrote that because he's reading) he asked about Jn 12:39.

I was exhausted and didn't really know how to answer at first. I had two thoughts - "What is the real context here?" and "Hrmm Fred might have found something here."

I emailed Stephen in case he had a quick answer I could pass on to Fred right away. Shortly I looked and found Jn 12:42 which told me we properly were not reading about Total Inability, but I still had to go through it and find out what was going on.

This is a little commentary heavy. If anyone would like a more detailed response please let me know. I'm feeling pretty lazy tonight.

Here is what I sent Fred: minus the niceties :)

Starting at Vs 12 we find the Lord entering Jerusalem on the appointed day of His triumphal entry. Many people were there to meet Him because they did believe He was Messiah. However, the Pharisees did not and were working against Him Vs 19. The people there were confused by His message of Him having to be killed. They knew He was the Messiah but they were convinced He was there to set up the Kingdom not to be killed. Even still the rulers rejected Him, and so Israel rejected Him. We hear only part of what happend that day in Jn 12, Luke 19 tells us a bit more. Luke 19:41-42 talks about the national blindness that Israel suffered for not receiving Him on that appointed day.

That's what we are reading about in Jn 12. We know it is the national blindness that Paul talks about in Romans, and the Lord announces in Luke 19, because many people there already did believe, and Jn 12:42-43 tells us that "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

So even though "they" the Pharisees and rulers could not as a nation receive the King, just as it was announced by Isaiah that they would not, individuals actually could "nevertheless" believe in Christ.

Also, as Stephen noted, this is not talking about a blindness of mankind due to our fallen depraved nature, but a blindness that was set in place at a particular time, on a particular nation, when the nation of Israel rejected Him. It is also of note that the quote from Isa 6:10 talks about "healing" which does not immediately lend itself to personal eternal salvation. I admit that there could be an allusion here, but I do not think that is what it is about because Isaiah was to preach to them and their cities were laid waste. The Lord is talking about healing the Nation, something that will happen when the King is seated in Jerusalem.

Kevl said...

All,

It has been quiet here but the discussion has continued over the previous weeks amongst some of my personal friends here in my own home city.

Here are some points brought up by Total Inability proponents that I will be discussing in some more comments.

1. That only an English speaker who doesn't truly understand Greek would make the argument that the gift in Eph 2:8-9 is anything but faith. Since the word Salvation doesn't appear in the sentence then the rules of Greek grammar with regard to gender do not apply.

2. John 1:12-13 says that one is first born again and then they believe, conditioning the belief on the being born again.

3. 1st John 5:1 says that one is first born again and then they believe, conditioning the belief on the being born again.

4. That the issue (as described in the article) of Romans 4:16 requiring faith to be non-meritorious is not actually an issue if the faith itself is a gift from God.

I will have to do some real writing to get to the first three points, but the 4th one is easy to answer in a few words so I'll go at it now.

Paul's argument is contrasting faith with meritorious works. If faith being something that would be meritorious, but were a gift, would make Paul's argument nonsensical.

He says in Rom 4:16 that it had to be by faith so that it could be by grace.

He would be saying "It had to be by the meritorious work of faith so that it could be by unmerited favor."

That faith is or isn't a gift would not help the sentence that Paul writes here. It simply makes it make no sense.

Paul's whole argument of Romans 4 is that salvation is not merited by works or value, it is not a reward for doing something good. It is bestowed by grace through faith, through believing appart from any works (anything meritorious) at all.

Kev

Orange said...

Regarding #1, I've repeatedly addressed this elsewhere and think I can help save you some writing... or maybe you'll disagree and will just have to write MORE to correct me as well. :-) So...

1st, the objection makes no sense because both grace and faith ARE specifically listed (and both are feminine) and yet the pronoun doesn't match either. The absence of "salvation" or any other neuter antecedent doesn't mean the rules shouldn't be applied to what IS listed, and neither grace nor faith fit the bill. It's a curious, dangerous, and suspect hermeneutic indeed that simply declares "the rules of grammar don't apply" for reasons that are obviously self-serving.

The problem with saying it's "salvation" however is that even if it was specifically mentioned it wouldn't help because salvation is ALSO feminine... so there IS a genuine problem with flatly stating that "salvation" is what the pronoun is referring to because it is, as a thing itself, not a viable answer for the same reason as the others. (more on this later though because this one is resolvable in a way the others aren't)

Another temptation is to attempt to resolve this by saying BOTH (or all three?) items are what the pronoun refers to, but therein lies another problem because the pronoun is singular and thus definitely refers to only a single thing, not a plurality of things.

There is, in fact, no antecedent in the immediate context that matches the pronoun -- so what to do? The solution is that Greek allows one to use the neuter when referring to a conceptual antecedent. [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace, p. 335.] Namely, and please catch the distinction carefully -- "salvation by grace through faith" --- that one singular collective concept resolves the grammatical problem that all the most common answers run into..

As said before, "salvation" is closest to the correct of the typical answers, but falls short as a flat answer. Rather it's "salvation by grace through faith" -- a single grand concept that towers above any one or more the components. The grammatical implication of the singular neuter pronoun thus completely dismantles any attempt to isolate any of the individual components as being the gift.

Kevl said...

All,

WRT to Issue 1:

"What Stephen said."

:)

Yep Stephen that's where I was going. Thanks, especially for including the ref to Wallace.

Kev

Orange said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Orange said...

Hey kev, I made some typos before so please post this one instead. Thanks.

Regarding 1 John 5:1, I've dealt with that too. The whole argument rests on that "believes" is present tense but being born again is past tense. While this has the appearance of making sense it misses the forest for the trees. Try applying that same reasoning to this sentence for example:

Everyone who is (present) a murder has (past) committed a crime.

Which came first? Do the tenses imply that I committed the crime before I committed the murder? Not at all.And the same with 1 John 5:1. The structure of the Greek for "who believes" is very similar to adding -er to a word in English and it just indicates a present status as the result of a past action in the same way being a murderer in the present is the result of having murdered in the past. Tenses aside, the truth is that both occurred simultaneously and 1 John 5:1 is no different.

I could say more but writing this from my phone.

Orange said...

At my computer now so hopefully I can clear up some things I may have too concise about when writing from my phone. Sorry if some of this is redundant, but I think my previous comment wasn't as clear as it should've been. So...

1 John 4 ends with the exhortation that "the one who loves God should love his brother also". This continues to be expanded upon in 5 where the focus is not at all on salvation per se but on the relationship we ought have with each other because of it. This isn't a remotely difficult or obsure interpretation at all, it's right from the text and context, and shows plainly that using ths as a proof-text for something as obscure and dogmatic as "regeneration/birth before faith" is a shaky interpretation at best.

The grammar of 5:1 doesn't really support regen-before-faith either because though a participle is a verb in part-of-speech its function within the verse is as a noun. The verb properties are informative of course, but it's basically a verb that's sitting-in for noun -- a verbal noun. When a present participle is preceded by a definite article (as is the case in 5:1) it is a construct that is equivalant to what we do in English when we ad -er to the end of a verb. i.e., if you have murdered at any point in your life we say in English, in present tense , that "you ARE a murderer" even though the murder is in the past and regardless of whether you are presently murdering anyone else -- the tense we use to describe such a one is nevertheless present. The "label" is spoken in present tense even though the action that justifies it was done and completed in the past. The Greek definite article+present participle construct here conveys the same concept -- that of a past action defining you in the present. With these things in mind, the noun that could be inserted into 5:1 in place of the particple (remember, it is a verbal NOUN) is "believer". 1 John 5:1 could then be interpreted like this:

Whoever is a believer (a present-tense label resulting from a past action) that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

The NASB, for example, interprets this same construct as "believers" in 1 Thess 1:7.

So, wihle I understand how one can "get" regen-before-faith out of it if that's what they're looking for, neither the grammar nor context of 1J5:1 provide any real support for it.

Kevl said...

That's fascinating Stephen! Thanks!

I haven't been able to get back to these questions since posting them. Combination of laziness and business.

Thanks for explaining this to me. I've also ordered Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. I have William Mounce's stuff but it is time to get Wallace too.

Thanks!
Kev

Shea said...

I must say, this thread has convinced me back and forth between the viewpoints, at least in part. I can certainly see how scripture seems to support both.

Here at the end of the thread I sit in self-pondering confusion and this is what my own spirit seems to say - if my own will be the lynchpin, either for the initial moment of salvation, or it's perseverance, I am without hope.

Perhaps others do not distrust their own will quite so much as I, or have not been scorched by their own lusts quite as often ... and perhaps this means I am lost or will be on that fast-approaching day.

I know this about me - the good things I would do I often don't, and the foul things I tell myself to never will again … I find again is only around the next corner.

Does my own experience of moral failure - even after raising my hand and muttering a sinners prayer - equate to Total moral corruption? I'd probably have a hard time convincing anyone but myself, but I am far too easily convinced of it.

I am a Christian only because God in Christ reached down into the deep dark pit I was digging and yanked me out - with the shovel still in my hand. Others had come along before and installed ladders but I quickly dismissed them with a finger-wag. A gospel at the top of a ladder is no good news to one too stubborn to climb.

You may dismiss me as a lost pagan fool with no understanding, I couldn't blame you and I certainly won't put up a fight when cast out for it. Yet even I somehow, miraculously, wonderfully, got myself constrained by the love of Christ - Lord have mercy on me a sinner.

Shea

Kevl said...

Hi Shea,

Thanks for your comment.

I agree with lots of the content of it, as I am sure any true Believer in Christ would.

Even after this long discussion you seem to have missed something fundamental however.

You wrote:

"Here at the end of the thread I sit in self-pondering confusion and this is what my own spirit seems to say - if my own will be the lynchpin, either for the initial moment of salvation, or it's perseverance, I am without hope. "

It has been a long time since I have read through this article and comments but I am confident when I say that I have not suggested anywhere that the will of man is the lynchpin in the process of one coming to Salvation.

While I believe that most instances of "Election" in the Scripture are actually Election to a task, suffering or some other thing like that, there is an Election that relates to Eternal Salvation. It is not TULIP's Unconditional Election, but it is "unconditional" in that it is decided before anyone is even alive. It does not however leave those who are not elected as unable to be saved. It probably means, though I could not prove this from Scripture definitively, that no one who isn't elected will be saved.

In short no one is saved outside of the Will of God. No one is saved unless God moves first. No one can be saved unless God draws them.

It is not that people cannot believe, or have faith, it is that they will not. God must, in accordance with His will, draw man.

In a recent short article I quoted a nearly finished draft of part of my ministry's Doctrines of Evangelism which speaks to this very topic.

You can read that here Pre Faith or Post Faith Regeneration

I hope this is helpful,
Kev

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 216 of 216   Newer› Newest»