Total Depravity Debate
Well what can I say, about the first of five debates on the 5 points of Calvinism? I can only sit back with a smile on my face. I have this smile first because of the character of the person that I am debating against. Nick Norelli is truly interested in the truth of the Word of God genuinely intrested in the issue, and not merely attacking the person. What a difference between this debate and the debate on the doctrine of the Trinity! My hat is off to you, Nick.
Still, there is somethings that should be commented on.
First, there is the definition issue. I was, quite frankly, suprised to see Mr. Norelli appeal to historical theology, particularly the terms Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Augustinianism. I was pleased to see these, because I understand these terms well and think they are essential to the development of the anthropology of man. I was however, disappointed to see that there was a lack of understanding of the historical context and the issues that led to the disagreement with Pelagius and Augustinianism. It is a fact that some of the statements that Pelagius made, contra to Augustine, are made by Mr. Norelli. For instance, at one point, Mr. Norelli plainly says, "If God commanded it, then man has the ability to do it." (My paraphrase). Pelagius is quoted as saying this. In fact, Pelagius carried this statement out to its logical conclusion, and said that because man has the natural ability (freedom) to do whatsoever God commands, then it follows necessarily that man, unaided by grace, is able to will himself to salvation - that is, the produce faith and repentance of his own will, even stop sinning of his own will. That is logically consistent.
Of course, I point this out, but there there is a quick denial of the logically consistent point. At one point I did tell Mr. Norelli that he was in agreement with Pelagius on a fundamental level since that it was his statement that gives foundation to Pelagius' view of Grace. Then I was quickly charged with agreeing with Geisler on a fundamental level simply because I believe in the Perseverance of the saints. Of course, little does Mr. Norelli know, that that cannot be the case since Geisler's assertions for "perseverance" are more on the basis of the will of man, and not in the sovereign decree of God through the atonement of Christ. Needless to say, that point was hardly worth responding to. Needless to say, the first rebuttal of Mr. Norelli was a bit more in line with the historical and theological views of Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism.
But was any progress really made with this? I don't think so. Mr. Norelli's position, as I understand it, was that "grace" comes to all men and men are free to accept or reject this "grace" if they want to. It is also this "grace" that enables men to be "free" to choose. Now, at thsi point he still wants to assert that "men without the aid of grace cannot choose to serve God" (my paraphrase). Personally, I agree with that statement, in and of itself. However, it is clear that Mr. Norelli makes no room for the inability of the will of man to believe in Christ. So this raises the question: If it is proposed that man has the ability to freely believe in Christ, yet that he needs grace in order to do so, then I would submit to you that you have a logical inconsistency.
For instance, suppose that I tell you, "If you want to, you can get on the roller coaster ride BUT you need to have a ticket first." Now, what is the value of the first statement in the light of the second? It really becomes meaningless. I was talking with my grandfather the other day about this view of grace and I put it to him this way. "What grace ends up becoming is like a flyer that gives you knowledge and ability to go to heaven. However, the flyer itself does not get you in to heaven. YOU have to choose to want to go to heaven. Now, when you get to heaven. Who shall we say is responsible for getting you to heaven? Shall we say that God, who gave you the flyer (symbol for "opportunity") is alone responsible and it alone to be glorified? But this cannot be the case since you would not be in heaven without YOU having made the choice - which is free from the Creator - in order to get there. Shall we say that it was your will alone, then that should take the credit? Shall we say that your character was more inclined toward the things of God that caused you to choose God? To say this, however, would clearly be against the teachings of Romans 3:10-18 which teaches the universality and equality of sin in all human beings. "There is no one righteous." Nobody is righteous, period. "There are no God-seekers". That means that no sinner is inclined toward God any more than the other. Plus, scripture clearly affirms that man is not responsible for his salvation. But still, the non-Calvinist dilemma is to maintain "free will" and "grace." I would submit to you that you cannot maintain both of these at the same time. Either "free will" reigns or "grace" does. When "free will" is upheld, the true and Biblical grace of God is what ends up getting downplayed.
There is no way to maintain the free will ability to choose and still have a true view of the grace of God. Like I mentioned in the closing argument, "If grace is viewed in such a way - that it merely restores to men their freedom to choose - then what you have is essentially God giving man the opportunity [the "grace"] to save himself!" All the work of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ truly is NOTHING before the eyes of God UNTIL the creatures uses his "free-will" to believe in Christ and make it all count.
I think its important to note that not a single scripture was provided, or exegeted, that explicitly taught the concept of the ability of man to believe spiritual things as they willed, or even a text of Scripture that defines grace in such a way as the enablement of all men to believe if they will. Suprisingly, there were no appeals to John 3:16 and the "whosoever will". By the way, it should be noted that the indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever" is NOT present in the Greek text at all. Rather, the text uses the present tense verb form of the verb "to believe" and is properly translated "all the ones who are believing". Why no Scriptures? Because there are none that teach this.
It is noteworthy that the exegesis provided in John 6:44, Romans 8:7-8, I Corinthians 2:14 and the mention of Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 13:23 and Job 15:15-16 remain irrefuted. There was not even an attempt to refute the exegesis. Why? Because those passages are clear that man is not able to believe in Christ at their own will. They stand as proof that the nature of man is so totally marred by sin, the heart is infected so that sin is inevitable (yes, necessary). As Augustine said, fallen man is "not able to not sin". Sin becomes the defining nature of humanity after the fall. The Scriptures are so clear on this. How can any one maintain "freedom" in this? The only "freedom" one can ascribe to man is "freedom to sin". The natural man is described as a "slave to sin". What does this mean but that he is only "free" to do whatsoever is within the will of his master. If he serves sin, then he may only sin. This can be the only meaning of slavery.
If we were able to freely and naturally choose to act against our sinful nature, then grace is not necessary. Moreover, the new birth is not necessary! After all, what is the point of being "born again" if man can freely choose to cooperate with grace when it comes to him to believe in Christ? What does the new birth do. I'm sure this will take on more significance when the debate on Irrestible Grace comes up.
Overall, the debate was very well conducted. I was disappointed with the short time that we initially agreed on for the Cross Examinations but more time will be given in the following debates.
Until the next one, keep both the participants in prayer. Pray that those to whom these come across would be blessed as we are not necessarily doing these debates for ourselves but as informative debates. God bless.
Moses
Still, there is somethings that should be commented on.
First, there is the definition issue. I was, quite frankly, suprised to see Mr. Norelli appeal to historical theology, particularly the terms Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Augustinianism. I was pleased to see these, because I understand these terms well and think they are essential to the development of the anthropology of man. I was however, disappointed to see that there was a lack of understanding of the historical context and the issues that led to the disagreement with Pelagius and Augustinianism. It is a fact that some of the statements that Pelagius made, contra to Augustine, are made by Mr. Norelli. For instance, at one point, Mr. Norelli plainly says, "If God commanded it, then man has the ability to do it." (My paraphrase). Pelagius is quoted as saying this. In fact, Pelagius carried this statement out to its logical conclusion, and said that because man has the natural ability (freedom) to do whatsoever God commands, then it follows necessarily that man, unaided by grace, is able to will himself to salvation - that is, the produce faith and repentance of his own will, even stop sinning of his own will. That is logically consistent.
Of course, I point this out, but there there is a quick denial of the logically consistent point. At one point I did tell Mr. Norelli that he was in agreement with Pelagius on a fundamental level since that it was his statement that gives foundation to Pelagius' view of Grace. Then I was quickly charged with agreeing with Geisler on a fundamental level simply because I believe in the Perseverance of the saints. Of course, little does Mr. Norelli know, that that cannot be the case since Geisler's assertions for "perseverance" are more on the basis of the will of man, and not in the sovereign decree of God through the atonement of Christ. Needless to say, that point was hardly worth responding to. Needless to say, the first rebuttal of Mr. Norelli was a bit more in line with the historical and theological views of Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism.
But was any progress really made with this? I don't think so. Mr. Norelli's position, as I understand it, was that "grace" comes to all men and men are free to accept or reject this "grace" if they want to. It is also this "grace" that enables men to be "free" to choose. Now, at thsi point he still wants to assert that "men without the aid of grace cannot choose to serve God" (my paraphrase). Personally, I agree with that statement, in and of itself. However, it is clear that Mr. Norelli makes no room for the inability of the will of man to believe in Christ. So this raises the question: If it is proposed that man has the ability to freely believe in Christ, yet that he needs grace in order to do so, then I would submit to you that you have a logical inconsistency.
For instance, suppose that I tell you, "If you want to, you can get on the roller coaster ride BUT you need to have a ticket first." Now, what is the value of the first statement in the light of the second? It really becomes meaningless. I was talking with my grandfather the other day about this view of grace and I put it to him this way. "What grace ends up becoming is like a flyer that gives you knowledge and ability to go to heaven. However, the flyer itself does not get you in to heaven. YOU have to choose to want to go to heaven. Now, when you get to heaven. Who shall we say is responsible for getting you to heaven? Shall we say that God, who gave you the flyer (symbol for "opportunity") is alone responsible and it alone to be glorified? But this cannot be the case since you would not be in heaven without YOU having made the choice - which is free from the Creator - in order to get there. Shall we say that it was your will alone, then that should take the credit? Shall we say that your character was more inclined toward the things of God that caused you to choose God? To say this, however, would clearly be against the teachings of Romans 3:10-18 which teaches the universality and equality of sin in all human beings. "There is no one righteous." Nobody is righteous, period. "There are no God-seekers". That means that no sinner is inclined toward God any more than the other. Plus, scripture clearly affirms that man is not responsible for his salvation. But still, the non-Calvinist dilemma is to maintain "free will" and "grace." I would submit to you that you cannot maintain both of these at the same time. Either "free will" reigns or "grace" does. When "free will" is upheld, the true and Biblical grace of God is what ends up getting downplayed.
There is no way to maintain the free will ability to choose and still have a true view of the grace of God. Like I mentioned in the closing argument, "If grace is viewed in such a way - that it merely restores to men their freedom to choose - then what you have is essentially God giving man the opportunity [the "grace"] to save himself!" All the work of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ truly is NOTHING before the eyes of God UNTIL the creatures uses his "free-will" to believe in Christ and make it all count.
I think its important to note that not a single scripture was provided, or exegeted, that explicitly taught the concept of the ability of man to believe spiritual things as they willed, or even a text of Scripture that defines grace in such a way as the enablement of all men to believe if they will. Suprisingly, there were no appeals to John 3:16 and the "whosoever will". By the way, it should be noted that the indefinite relative pronoun "whosoever" is NOT present in the Greek text at all. Rather, the text uses the present tense verb form of the verb "to believe" and is properly translated "all the ones who are believing". Why no Scriptures? Because there are none that teach this.
It is noteworthy that the exegesis provided in John 6:44, Romans 8:7-8, I Corinthians 2:14 and the mention of Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 13:23 and Job 15:15-16 remain irrefuted. There was not even an attempt to refute the exegesis. Why? Because those passages are clear that man is not able to believe in Christ at their own will. They stand as proof that the nature of man is so totally marred by sin, the heart is infected so that sin is inevitable (yes, necessary). As Augustine said, fallen man is "not able to not sin". Sin becomes the defining nature of humanity after the fall. The Scriptures are so clear on this. How can any one maintain "freedom" in this? The only "freedom" one can ascribe to man is "freedom to sin". The natural man is described as a "slave to sin". What does this mean but that he is only "free" to do whatsoever is within the will of his master. If he serves sin, then he may only sin. This can be the only meaning of slavery.
If we were able to freely and naturally choose to act against our sinful nature, then grace is not necessary. Moreover, the new birth is not necessary! After all, what is the point of being "born again" if man can freely choose to cooperate with grace when it comes to him to believe in Christ? What does the new birth do. I'm sure this will take on more significance when the debate on Irrestible Grace comes up.
Overall, the debate was very well conducted. I was disappointed with the short time that we initially agreed on for the Cross Examinations but more time will be given in the following debates.
Until the next one, keep both the participants in prayer. Pray that those to whom these come across would be blessed as we are not necessarily doing these debates for ourselves but as informative debates. God bless.
Moses
posted by prchdaword at 7:07 PM
2 comments
