Jesus & His Kingdom: Introduction
Posted in Bible, Jesus & His Kingdom, Religion on | 4 minutes | 41 Comments →
When I asked readers to suggest writing topics for 2011, Matt and Garren both suggested sticking with book reviews. Matt also alluded to my previously stated interest in developing content that explores what the Bible actually says about various topics.
A few weeks ago at CSA, I began to notice several intelligent and well-reasoned comments from a believer named Mike Gantt, who caught my attention with the following :
…the heaven-or-hell theory of afterlife promulgated today largely by evangelical Christianity… is not biblical. The Bible actually teaches that everyone is going to heaven and everyone is judged for their sins. Therefore, whether you believe in this or not, you will go to heaven when you die. However, the degree of enjoyment you have with that life there will be based in large part on morality with which you lived your life on earth (including the kindness you showed others who were less fortunate). [Mike Gantt]
As is the case whenever anybody makes a claim I’m skeptical of, my initial reaction was to ask Mike for the evidence that he felt justified his position. He replied with links to a book he’s written on the subject, titled Jesus and His Kingdom: The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven. I gave his links a perfunctory read, decided I couldn’t agree based on what I’d seen, then figured that would be the end of it. A week later, Mike left a comment here that contained the same claim: everybody goes to heaven. For some reason, this time, I felt the need to reply.
So, perhaps you can see where all of this is going: Responding To Universalism will be one of TWIM’s new book review series’ for 2011.
The idea that everybody goes to heaven is commonly referred to as universalism. The doctrine has also been referred to as apokatastasis or final salvation. Support for this doctrine intensified in the postapostolic Christian period, persuading a subset of notable church fathers including Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Support for universalism waned during the Middle Ages and was later revived in the sixteenth century. Notable opponents of the doctrine include Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Today, universalism finds expression primarily in the teachings of the Unitarian Universalist organization, influenced by the theologian Clarence Skinner.
Many, many people have doubted and even outright rejected Christianity due to the concept of eternal punishment. I must admit, universalism is certainly more appealing to my emotions, and I would really like to believe that everybody is going to heaven. What a tremendous burden that would be lifted if I could believe this were true! However, I can’t force myself to believe a doctrine when it seems contrary to the clear teaching of scripture, no matter how badly I wish it were so.
About three paragraphs into tonight’s post, I questioned my motives for embarking on this effort. I’m still unsure. Although I do believe universalism to be in error, successfully demonstrating my claim would seem likely to lead people away from the Bible rather than towards it. It’s really quite the conundrum: to argue what I believe will likely turn more people away from it.
Nonetheless, what should be interesting is that, in contrast to years of debating atheists, this will be the first time I’ve devoted sustained effort into critiquing the works of a fellow believer. To be honest, I’m looking forward to it. Breaking from the norm is often productive. Although, I must say, I’ve seen some pretty nasty discussions between universalists and traditional evangelicals before. The last thing in the world I would want is for our discussion to devolve into something like this. Then again, Mike strikes me as a pretty amiable guy, so, I’m optimistic that if he’s interested in engaging, things will proceed with mutual respect.
That said, feel free to give Mike a warm welcome. I’ve already read over half of his book, and we’ll start examining the arguments for and against his position shortly.
Matt
says...Sounds like a cool discussion. Though I really think the Bible gives us an impression that there is condemnation after this life it’s not something I relish the idea of. I’m often excited to read a Biblical case for universalism (Mike isn’t the only one who puts one out there, many emergent Christians do) because I would personally like to believe that and am disappointed when I find the arguments unconvincing.
One thing I do agree with universalists on is that we don’t have as much knowledge from the Bible as we think we do about the afterlife.
Here are some other takes I’ve read across the internet about the issue that you might enjoy (if you haven’t already read them):
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-i-am-not-universalist.html (the comments are the interesting part)
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=4330823&page=1
Michael
says...Although I think Mike’s reasoning is incredibly erroneous, he is indeed at extremely calm and amiable guy. One of the threads on his website had countless comments calling him stupid and deluded and in his responses not once did he stoop to that level so I really commend him for that.
Cl, I don’t know if you have the book, “Contending with Christianity’s critics” edited by craig and copan, but there is a chapter on hell in there, and if the rest of the book is anything to go by then it will be extremely well reasoned and nuanced.
Mike
says...I’m happy for the attention to my message and welcome your critique. The truth will always withstand honest scrutiny.
For those who’ve not yet read what I’ve written on this subject, be aware that I did not learn any of this from universalist sources nor am I involved, or have I ever been involved, in any universalist circles.
I am uncomfortable with the label of universalist for two reasons: 1) I don’t know what all universalists believe and therefore don’t want to be responsible for defending things I don’t believe, and 2) There is more to my message than everyone going to heaven (e.g. judgment is upon us and we all should repent) and I don’t want people to miss these elements.
I do not write this in protest of the post title or of anyone who chooses to use the term. I only want to appeal to the open-minded not to prejudge my message by ascribing to me baggage that belongs to that label.
If you don’t remember anything else from what I write, remember this: Jesus Christ is Lord.
Matt
says...I always thought universalism just meant belief that everyone was saved. I did not know that there was supposed to be more to it than that and that universalism covered a diverse set of beliefs until I saw the Dangerous Idea posts. The wikipedia page still seems to suggest that universalism is open ended though.
One thing I’ve noticed about the Unitarians I knew growing up (I grew up near a Unitarian church in Southern California) was that they are more like pluralists now than universalists. They seem to believe that all religions preach some kind of truth and I even knew people who attended their services who were atheists.
Garren
says...I was obsessed with this topic as a Christian, so I look forward to future posts.
Just a note: you may want to refer to it as “Christian universalism” to distinguish it from the vague Hollywood religiosity in which everyone who isn’t a murderer naturally goes to a good afterlife. Christian universalism still requires Christian salvation…but without God giving up on everyone if they haven’t figured things out before dying.
cl
says...Matt,
So I was resting at home with a pinched nerve in my back, and had some time to explore the links you provided. I made it about half-way through the comments you mentioned, and I’m sure I’ll be returning to all of this as this discussion develops.
The following from Ken Collins struck me as especially salient:
This is one reason I find the argument from religious dissonance unpersuasive. Surely you’ve heard an atheist argue that lack of coherency amongst Christian doctrine constitutes sound evidence against the truthfulness of the scriptures, right? Yet, these people don’t equally argue that lack of coherency amongst the various theories of gravity constitue sound evidence against the truthfulness thereof, do they?
Collins kind of lost me on the “third way,” but, nonetheless, it was a thought-provoking read. For me, the take-home points were the “hell contains only volunteer residents” part, and the “no one can forgive you of something if you don’t admit it is your fault” part. I especially liked Collins’ interpretation of the adulterous woman. He approached the scripture with a keen eye for detail, as evidenced in his noting that those who were about to stone her walked away of their own volition, presumably because of their pride, whereas the woman they were about to condemn remained, as a result of her humility.
Michael,
Yeah, unfortunately, one finds that kind of stuff frequently. I see it as the equivalent of intellectual road rage to be quite honest. In the same way emotionally disturbed drivers tend to “fly off the handle” because they feel safe in their cars, emotionally disturbed commenters tend to “fly off the handle” because they feel safe on the other end of their computer. I’ve seen this on many blogs, and this type of behavior seems on the rise over at Common Sense Atheism. Nonetheless, I look forward to an amiable discussion with Mike, too.
Mike,
Acknowledged. I was careful not to describe you as a universalist, and I use the term universalism only in its most general sense. However, as Garren notes, something like Christian universalism is really what’s under scrutiny here, and, as you note, your position is larger than that. I think the main point is that we all know what the other person means by the words they’re using, and in that I find some reassurance.
That’s completely understandable, and this is the major reason I’m reluctant to describe myself as a Christian at all. It’s an emotionally-charged keyword with as many interpretations as there are people who use it. I sympathize with your desire to not be categorized and I’ll do what I can to avoid the “packaging” of your message.
In the meantime, perhaps you can share some of your exegetical criteria and/or guidelines? For example, what principles do you abide by in your interpretation of scripture? That sort of thing.
Garren,
LOL! Noted.
Mike
says...You and I are on the same page regarding that term, too.
You’ve done fine so far, so don’t fear that I’ll be excessively sensitive about this issue.
I read the Bible as I do any other book, doing my best to let it speak for itself. I rely very little on commentaries and avoid “isms” and “schools of thought” on how to interpret specific passages. I look for themes that are repeated, expanded, and amplified by both the prophets (i.e., the OT) and the apostles (i.e. the NT), and, by contrast, do not feel comfortable building an understanding on an isolated verse here and there.
If this answer is insufficient, I’ll be happy to answer specific follow-ups.
Ronin
says...cl,
I have enjoyed reading your blog the past couple of months. That said, you wrote:
//Although I do believe universalism to be in error, successfully demonstrating my claim would seem likely to lead people away from the Bible rather than towards it. It’s really quite the conundrum: to argue what I believe will likely turn more people away from it.//
I do not believe in universalism either, but I will be very interested in how you describe the doctrine of total depravity as well as your perception of faith.
Keep up the good work.
Blessings,
Me
cl
says...Mike,
No, you gave enough to go on, at least for now. You’ve also prompted me to ask myself the same question, so, I’ll probably explain this in a future post before getting too deep into our discussion of your book.
Ronin,
Hey thanks.
Feel free to drop a line or ask for specifics anytime. One of my goals for 2011 is to spend more – if not most – of my time writing to believers, and, more believers asking questions will help that. When it comes to my writing about religion / philosophy / science / etc., I’ve been debating and catering my writing to atheists for years now, yet, before that, I use to write almost exclusively for believers. I’m hoping to incorporate the best of both worlds here in 2011, which means I’ll be breaking out lots of old pieces, too. I’m excited to get out of the rut.
Matt
says...cl,
“You’ve also prompted me to ask myself the same question, so, I’ll probably explain this in a future post before getting too deep into our discussion of your book.”
I’ve been asking myself that same question too. I came to faith before I read much of the Bible or understood the diversity of interpretations. Because of that I’ve always had a habit of reading my theology into the text instead of the text itself. On top of that the translators often have a habit of mixing their theology into the translation (I’ve heard this criticism especially of NIVs from seminary students, they often call it the “Nearly Inspired Version”). It’s often surprising to see how scholars will come away with completely different views of what a passage means based on their understanding of the language, historical context and literary genre than what a layman will come away with from a straightforward reading colored by his theological assumptions about what the Bible says.
Because I teach the Bible to children I feel like I’ve failed them if I neatly pound the passages into the dogmatic framework I’ve been trained to read it with or add components to the text that are not there to better harmonize it internally or with history and science (though the dogmatic approach makes motivating them to follow it much easier as being intellectually honest can come off as wishy-washy). I’m not as resistant to -isms or schools of thought as Mike is because I think we need to know what the author’s world looks like to understand the meaning of the text and to my understanding that’s what some of the schools of thought are about.
Mike
says...Matt, I share your interest in “what the author’s world looks like to understand the meaning of the text.” However, I see that more as a part of letting the text speak for itself than I see it as a part of letting someone else’s theology encroach on your reading.
Further to your point, understanding the historical context of a writer is very helpful, and sometimes critical, to getting his meaning. For example, having Acts as the backdrop for the epistles is wonderful. I think you and I see this issue very similarly.
I also share your concern about English translations and current theological mindsets that can slip into the wording. That’s why I have always leaned toward the more literal translations (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and so on). Also, the more literal translations enable those of us who aren’t fluent in ancient Greek or Hebrew to use references tools, like Strong’s concordance, that get us closer to the words the biblical writers used.
That’s terrific that you teach the Bible to children for that causes you to reach understandings that are simple and practical. And, as Jesus said, we have to be as children to enter the kingdom. If we would all just practice what we teach the children, we’d all be stronger for the Lord.
Matt
says...Thanks for clarifying Mike. I see we have the same goal.
Ronin
says...cl,
Perhaps something on the following would be great:
Is God really calling everyone into repentance? And/or did He subjectively select His elect?
*If* our nature does not allow us to believe in Him and He had to literary drag us into a new nature (regeneration) first, how is God not being arbitrary in His selection? No one can be justified by works but by faith, right?
Mike
says...My two cents on repentance: God is calling everyone to repent, and He gives everyone the ability to repent.
Ronin
says...Mike wrote:
“My two cents on repentance: God is calling everyone to repent, and He gives everyone the ability to repent.”
If God is calling everyone to repent and does give the ability to repent to all, then, the Reformed perspective on what God’s grace is and what total depravity means cannot be correct.
Mike Gantt
says...Ronin, I think you’re right.
cl
says...So, I’m feeling better, and it’s time to answer the comments I couldn’t get to last time. There are some on other threads, too, but for now, I’ll start here:
Ronin,
I’d like to add some thoughts here, but, before I do, can you summarize what you have in mind when you say, “the Reformed perspective on what God’s grace is,” and also, “total depravity?”
As you know, there are many different people who interpret many different things many different ways. I figure let’s skip all that and address the terms exactly as you use them.
Ronin
says...Several things you should know about me before we get started:
1.) I come from a Protestant background, but I hold to the position that the Body of Christ is and will be those who believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Meaning, the Church includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc., and I reserve judgment as ONLY God knows the heart of the individual.
2.) I think this “debate” about Calvinism and Arminianism is a Protestant illusion, because we see/read these theological discourses before the Reformation in Rabbinical thought. Moreover, the Protestants were influenced by Augustine’s writings on God’s grace.
3.) I do not think there is any coincidence that Luther saw the writings of James as straw compared to Paul’s writings.
4.) Regarding exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. There has been no self proclaimed Calvinist that I have spoken to who thinks God changes His mind (note that there are some verses that imply as much). Why am I mentioning this? Well, I have encountered certain people who want to press specific Bible verses (i.e. John 6:44) on a wooden literal translation of the verse, but they at the same time would like to forgo a wooden literal translation on the verses that seem to portray God in a negative light (He changes His mind). So, first I need to understand the modus operandi of the person I am in dialogue with.
cl writes:
//I’d like to add some thoughts here, but, before I do, can you summarize what you have in mind when you say, “the Reformed perspective on what God’s grace is,” and also, “total depravity?”//
Grace:
“In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen.”
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html
Total Depravity:
“The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and “utter” depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin.”
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/depravity.html
BTW, it seems Sproul wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to imply that we are “totally” depraved, but then, he also wants to assert this totality is not absolute.
Ronin
says...I forgot to mention, “I am pleased to read that you are feeling better.”
cl
says...Ronin,
Hey thanks. The days are definitely sunnier over here, that’s for sure.
As far as the discussion, you had said to Mike:
Matthew 22:14 states that “…many are called[.]” 1 Timothy 2:4 states that God, “…desires all people to be saved[.]” In John 6:44, Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him[.]”
So, I seem to agree with Mike that God is “calling” all people to repent. Although Matthew 22:14 seems to plainly state that “many” are called, and “many” is certainly distinct from “all,” 1 Timothy 2:4 seems to provide clarification: God desires all to be saved. So, at present, without going to the Greek, I interpret things as such: God wants or desires all to repent, and calls many, where “call” amounts to something above and beyond desire; something like enabling. The “call” could be the very “softening of the heart” alluded to in your supplied definition of grace, and the very “enabling” Jesus alludes to in John 6:44.
Mike had also written that God, “gives everyone the ability to repent.” I’m hesitant there, because I’m unsure of what Mike meant. Now, if Mike simply meant that God would be willing to give anyone the ability to repent, I don’t see any challenge to scripture, or your supplied definitions of grace / depravity. However, if Mike meant that all people currently possess the ability to repent, I would disagree, appealing to Jesus’ words in John 6:44. Perhaps Mike will clarify what he meant.
Lastly, I don’t see any contradiction between anything I said and the supplied definition of total depravity: we may certainly be “corrupt in the totality of our being,” but this doesn’t mean God can’t “call” people by “softening their heart,” thus “enabling” them to see grace.
However, on account of John 6:44, I do see a contradiction between the claim that everyone currently possesses the ability to repent, and the supplied doctrine of total depravity.
I hope that helps.
Mike,
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts and/or clarifications as well.
Ronin
says...cl writes:
//Matthew 22:14 states that “…many are called[.]” 1 Timothy 2:4 states that God, “…desires all people to be saved[.]” In John 6:44, Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him[.]”//
The problem that I have with you quoting 1 Timothy 2:4 and holding to the definition of total depravity (as defined by Sproul) would be as follows: God ought to know such things are not possible. So, I am going to have to doubt God’s desire for all people to come to knowledge of the truth as well as being saved.
Most Calvinist(s) that I have spoken to take the “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean some people but not all as in the whole world. The Greek word is generic so it can be used as such, but I do not think such a proposition bodes well for God’s character.
cl also writes:
//So, I seem to agree with Mike that God is “calling” all people to repent. Although Matthew 22:14 seems to plainly state that “many” are called, and “many” is certainly distinct from “all,” 1 Timothy 2:4 seems to provide clarification: God desires all to be saved. So, at present, without going to the Greek, I interpret things as such: God wants or desires all to repent, and calls many, where “call” amounts to something above and beyond desire; something like enabling. The “call” could be the very “softening of the heart” alluded to in your supplied definition of grace, and the very “enabling” Jesus alludes to in John 6:44.//
As I alluded above, it would seem to me that this “call” is NOT genuine, because those whom God withholds His grace are “unaware.” Moreover, it appears that in order to have a relationship with God we have to be forced into it—since this “enabling” means one is being dragged into a new nature.
Mike Gantt
says...cl and Ronin,
Regarding your request for my thoughts on John 6:44, I believe it is taken out of context when used to say that everyone doesn’t have the ability to repent. Rather, in context Jesus is defending His ministry to critics and pointing out that the only people coming to Him are those being drawn by God (“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”). In other words He was saying that as a man He had no drawing power of His own, it was His faithfulness to God that was drawing Him a crowd.
As for Calvinism and Arminianism, I believe they are theological constructs that become limiting lens through which their adherents read Scripture. As a result, it becomes harder for such people to see plain and simple truths that the Bible teaches because if anything doesn’t fit their respective theological constructs, they tend to throw it out.
If Calvinists and Armininians would trade in their zeal for theological construct (e.g. TULIP) for a zeal for the word of God, they would be mighty for God indeed.
cl
says...Ronin,
How would the fact that such things might not be possible preclude God’s ability to genuinely desire that all be saved? I genuinely desire all sorts of things that I don’t believe to be possible. It seems to me there’s no reason to treat those as mutually exclusive.
While I’m not exactly what you mean by the “unaware” part, the way I look at it, God’s desire for all to be saved can be genuine, despite the fact that many will reject grace.
I disagree strongly. If I enable my daughter to do something, I am not forcing her into it. Rather, I’m opening the door, and she can step through if she so desires.
I really don’t see any contradiction or difficulty here, but, maybe I’m missing something.
Mike,
I’m with you when it comes to hesitancy towards theological constructs. In general, I try to stay away from “isms” and factions at all costs. I completely agree that they can encourage allegiance to doctrine over truth. That said, I need some clarification before I can adequately respond to the rest of your comment.
When you said that God “gives everyone the ability to repent,” did you mean that that God would be willing to give anyone the ability to repent? Or, did you mean that all people currently possess the ability to repent? Or, something else?
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the difference between the two answer options you have given.
Ronin
says...//How would the fact that such things might not be possible preclude God’s ability to genuinely desire that all be saved?//
That’s because God has to “draw” by force but fails to draw everyone.
The hearts of those who God decided to bypass are still totally depraved, then, how do you suppose God truly wants them to be saved? Of course, I am arguing from your definition of total depravity.
// I genuinely desire all sorts of things that I don’t believe to be possible. It seems to me there’s no reason to treat those as mutually exclusive.//
Yet, you are a mere human and I am talking about God. So, we are not talking about the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
//While I’m not exactly what you mean by the “unaware” part, the way I look at it, God’s desire for all to be saved can be genuine, despite the fact that many will reject grace.//
Which grace would that be? You obviously are not talking about the following:
“In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen.”
There was NO grace given to those whom He hardened and judged. Unless, I am missing something, because the above seems to imply that only those who He inclines to believe shall believe. Meaning, they are totally dead in their nature, and unless God forces them out of that nature they can’t and won’t believe.
//I disagree strongly. If I enable my daughter to do something, I am not forcing her into it. Rather, I’m opening the door, and she can step through if she so desires.//
Once God softens the hearts of the individual all the individual can do is believe. Unless, you are saying God can soften my heart and I can reject His calling, which would mean God predestined me to His drawing but I rejected it.
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
What I meant was, do you mean that everyone has the ability to repent in the same way that everyone has the ability to choose pants over shorts when they get dressed for the day? As in, do you think all a person has to do is use their own will, much like they would in any other decision?
Ronin,
You seem to be arguing that God overrides the free will of those who convert. If so, I disagree.
I didn’t give a definition of total depravity. I used the one you supplied, and still, I don’t see an inconsistency there. Are you saying that since God doesn’t “force” everyone to convert, that God doesn’t want everyone to convert?
Here’s another analogy: I want the best for my friends and family. Really, I want the best for all people. It bothers me to see people laying around on the street suffering. However, I know that many people are going to persist in their suffering unto their death. The fact that I know many won’t change doesn’t mean my desire isn’t genuine. Right?
The way I look at it is like this: we’re all “dead in our nature” by default, via the fall. God desires all to repent. God calls many to repent. Of those called, few are chosen.
Is your complaint that that seems unfair? If not, what exactly is your complaint?
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
“What I meant was, do you mean that everyone has the ability to repent in the same way that everyone has the ability to choose pants over shorts when they get dressed for the day? As in, do you think all a person has to do is use their own will, much like they would in any other decision?”
Yes. When God commands “Repent!,” the grace to obey Him is implicit, and conveyed to the hearer, in His command.
Ronin
says...//You seem to be arguing that God overrides the free will of those who convert. If so, I disagree.//
Once God softens the heart of an individual, do you believe the individual can lose faith in Christ?
//I didn’t give a definition of total depravity.//
You agreed with the definition I gave. Right? If so, then it’s your definition as well. Right?
//Here’s another analogy: I want the best for my friends and family. Really, I want the best for all people. It bothers me to see people laying around on the street suffering. However, I know that many people are going to persist in their suffering unto their death. The fact that I know many won’t change doesn’t mean my desire isn’t genuine. Right?//
cl, that is quite an oversimplification of the matters at hand, don’t you think? But, let’s examine your analogy. First, what do you mean people are going to persist in their suffering unto their death? Second, I happen to work for a government agency that deals with what you are talking about here (I work for a Housing Authority). What I see happening with the families is that the parents of the children we help have been psychologically affected in a negative manner. Why? Their parents before them failed to give them the appropriate attention and proper tools in order for them to be productive in society. So, these parents pass uneducated information to their kids and it becomes a vicious cycle. However, we give them the tools they need to succeed in their communities and abroad (budgeting, helping them find jobs, etc.). And, if they are able bodies then they have to work for 20 hours or more, or they have to do 20 hours of community service in order for them to keep their subsidized assistance. Now, we cannot reach all the people, but we help the most people we possibly can (this means we are limited to our resources and we can only do so much), but (once again) I am talking about God. God has the ability to soften everyone’s heart, but God does not soften everyone’s heart according to Reformed theology. So, God’s desire is not genuine (under Reformed theology), because He does not educate or try to give the homeless a chance at life (hypothetically speaking).
//The way I look at it is like this: we’re all “dead in our nature” by default, via the fall. God desires all to repent. God calls many to repent. Of those called, few are chosen.//
How does God desire all to repent if those whom He chooses were dead in their nature (which is when one can only repent), but those whom He does not chose are still dead in their nature?
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
Gotcha. Personally, I don’t think that view is compatible with a plain reading of scripture. Towards this end, you wrote,
Yet, Jesus plainly states that nobody can come to him unless God enables them, and other verses seem to affirm this. There was one other thing I wanted to comment on earlier:
I think that’s a pretty harsh over-generalization. I don’t think it’s fair to throw all Calvinists and Armininians in that category. I know of people in that category who have great zeal for the word of God. Second–and please don’t take offense here–but it seems to me that this criticism could also apply to yourself. It seems to me that you are abiding by a “theological construct” that is plainly at odds with the verses cited. To me, it takes more “zeal for theological construct” to interpret the aforementioned verses the way you do, as opposed to a plain reading. Again, though, no offense intended. I just think we might want to be more careful of sweeping generalizations about entire groups of believers.
Ronin,
Yes, I most surely do. I think the legion of deconverted essentially prove as much. In no way do I believe that God overrides the free will of the person who believes. I’m open to verses or arguments that would seem to suggest otherwise, however.
I used the definition you supplied. That doesn’t make it mine. No big deal there, though.
No, I really don’t. By “persist in their suffering unto their death,” I simply mean that many people will remain in their ways until they die, despite the fact that assistance is available.
This, I think, is the gist of your criticism. It seems to me that everything written thus far distills to this single line. Surely, God has the power to override everybody’s free will and force them to believe, but, in your opinion, why doesn’t God do that? Is the fact that God does not do this equally unfair?
Again, and no offense here, but I think that’s a misstep in logic. I’m not trying to “defend” Reformed theology, either. I’m just doing what I can with [what I take to be] basic logic and a straight-forward reading of scripture. It seems we’re doomed to forever talk past each other here, too, because you seem unwilling to accept any human analogies, but I think the ones given thus far hold quite well.
Why does God seem to choose one over another? I don’t know, but that such is apparently the case doesn’t necessarily entail that God does not genuinely desire all to repent. I would imagine that given a different attitude and/or set of actions, the situation with Pharaoh could have been different. It seems to me that pride and vanity might be blocks. Still, this doesn’t mean that God wouldn’t prefer–and genuinely desire–that Pharaoh repent. Like I said, though, I don’t think God is in the business of forcing people to repent, and that seems to be among our chief differences here.
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
No offense taken. Apparently, at least in this case, one person’s “plain reading” is another person’s “theological construct,” and vice versa.
By the way, in reading your comments on this subject it seems you are a “TUL” but not an “IP” Calvinist. Please correct or confirm. Thanks.
Ronin
says...//I used the definition you supplied. That doesn’t make it mine. No big deal there, though.//
If your definition is different in some sort of way perhaps you can explain it; in order for me to under understand your position better.
//No, I really don’t. By “persist in their suffering unto their death,” I simply mean that many people will remain in their ways until they die, despite the fact that assistance is available.//
How do you suppose they know to seek the help if they have not been regenerated? That is why your analogy does not work (IMO).
Do you think someone can seek God out of their own free will? Or, do you believe God regenerates them first then they believe? Or, do you think it’s a cooperation between God and man?
//This, I think, is the gist of your criticism. It seems to me that everything written thus far distills to this single line. Surely, God has the power to override everybody’s free will and force them to believe, but, in your opinion, why doesn’t God do that? Is the fact that God does not do this equally unfair?//
Um, I don’t believe God “forces” anyone into believing. I believe God wants everyone to repent, and His relationship with us is not forceful. However, if you are asking me why God does not “regenerate” all men (prior to believing) under Calvinism, then, (IMO) it must be that God does NOT want all to be saved (since all are totally depraved and cannot seek His help (believe in Him)).
//Again, and no offense here, but I think that’s a misstep in logic. I’m not trying to “defend” Reformed theology, either. I’m just doing what I can with [what I take to be] basic logic and a straight-forward reading of scripture. It seems we’re doomed to forever talk past each other here, too, because you seem unwilling to accept any human analogies, but I think the ones given thus far hold quite well.//
Perhaps I misjudged your view. I don’t mind human analogies, actually. I will be interested to see how you answer the questions I posed above.
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
I respectfully disagree. By your own admission, you seem to be reading, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” as, “anyone can decide to come to me in the same way they decide whether to wear pants or shorts when they get dressed for the day.” I don’t think that can qualify as “plain reading” by any definition of the phrase. On what grounds do you support such an interpretation?
As far as the TULIP thing, I’m hesitant to answer without knowing exactly what you mean, but, I’m willing to try given a more precise question.
Ronin,
I don’t have a definition of “total depravity” at all. I’m using the one you supplied. I’m not sure where the disconnect is.
What does “regenerated” mean in that sentence? In my view, regeneration occurs after God has enabled the believer to come to him, at the precise moment the believer repents and becomes indwelt.
Yes, but I do not believe that anyone can attain salvation / regeneration by their own free will.
My answer to this question depends on what you mean by “regenerates,” so I’ll wait for that. If your “regenerates” is identical to Jesus’ “enables” in John 6:44, then, yes, but that is not how I define “regenerates.”
Hmmm…. here’s where I got that impression:
Where did I go wrong? Did you simply mean that under Calvinism, God has to draw by force? If so, how so? If not, what did you mean?
Then, we seem to agree there, but, if God’s drawing is not forceful, doesn’t that undermine your previous objection that God’s desire for everyone to be saved cannot be genuine?
As far as the rest, I’ll need to re-read this thread and then clarify my own thoughts before I dig us into a deeper hole… :)
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
All I meant on the TULIP question was that I was inferring from your comments to me and others that you accepted Calvin’s view of total depravity, unconditional election, and limited atonement while not accepting his view of irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints. I’m not trying to box you in or set you up; I’m just looking for clarity.
I should add that in a previous comment you said you shared my lack of appetite for “isms.” From that I inferred too much. That is, I inferred that you did not embrace Calvinism. I’m trying to avoid the same mistake now by seeking a better understanding of your view. It seems to be not a full embrace of Calvinism but merely an embrace of some of its tenets. Again, my only purpose is to better understand you – and that with view to improving communications.
I will get to your other question later today.
Thanks.
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
I don’t support such an interpretation. I don’t even think this verse speaks to Calvinist-Arminian disputes one way or the other. Please let me explain.
Consider Lydia in Acts 16. She was a worshiper of God.who happened to be present just outside Philippi when Paul was preaching the gospel. Luke says that “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” Paul could have later responded to anyone who challenged him about Lydia’s following him, “Lydia could not have come to me unless the Lord who sent me drew her.” He would not have been making any comment about Calvinist-Arminian issues; rather, he would have been saying that Lydia’s predisposition to God is what allowed her to be drawn to the preaching of Paul.
Similarly, I believe Jesus was pointing out to the Jewish leaders who were critical of Him that His disciples only became devoted to Him because they were first devoted to God. That is, they were – like Lydia – worshipers of God. We could parenthetically say that Nicodemus distinguished himself from Jewish leaders of that day by his interest in Jesus, which was a sign that he was indeed a worshiper of the one true God (which his fellow Sanhedrin members were obviously not).
In a more general sense we see Paul outline this principle in 2 Corinthians 3 when he says in verse 16, “But whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” He is speaking there of the Jews inability to see Christ in the Old Testament. However, his redemptive point is that if any of those Jews would turn toward heaven with an open heart, they would subsequently be able to recognize Christ in the OT because God, in whose hands they would have put their hearts, would be opening their eyes. Proverbs 21:1 speaks of this principle as well.
Moreover, I have seen this principle at work in my own life. I can look back and see times when my heart was hardened toward God. When I confessed my sin and opened myself in honest seeking, He then began to open my eyes to things in the Scriptures and in my life to which I had previously been blind.
Thus I do not believe John 6:44 speaks to, much less settles, Calvinist-Arminian disputes.
I do not expect that you will embrace my view on this. However, I offer all it in the genuine hope that you will, going forward, grant me the courtesy that this is indeed my “plain reading” even if you think I am plainly wrong.
Ronin
says...Okay, moving on.
To be clear, are you saying a person comes to faith by believing first and then becomes indwelt? Or, are you saying the person has faith by believing and becoming indwelt simultaneously? Or, are you saying God enables a person first, then, the person believes and becomes indwelt?
So, does it boil down to some sort of cooperation between God and man?
“A cardinal point or Reformed theology [Calvinism] is the maxim: “Regeneration precedes faith.” Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe. (Chosen By God, pg. 72)”
Yes, I meant under Calvinism. See above.
No, because I don’t believe in this so called total depravity, rather, I believe we are depraved.
cl
says...Sorry for the extended absence. I comment on other blogs quite a bit, and, when we hit our stalemate, I thought it might help to do some reading and come back with fresh eyes.
Mike Gantt,
Are you saying that only those predisposed to God come to God? Here’s why I ask:
Actually, I don’t think he could have. He could have said, “Lydia could not have come to Christ unless the Father who sent me drew her,” and this would be in accord with John 6:44 as far as I can see, but this is a minor point and doesn’t seem to challenge your broader message–at least, not that I’m aware of.
This may be the case, but is it true that Jesus’ disciples were already devoted to God? That might be an assumption, and, I would be hesitant to rest on that if it were.
I agree completely. However, I don’t think the Jews’ inability to recognize Christ in the OT necessarily speaks on the issue we’re discussing. You write:
But, if you “confessed your sin,” then you had already come to believe, right? Or, are you saying that before you believed, your heart was hardened, then you confessed, and then the veil was lifted?
I don’t know that it does, either. Surely, people interpret Calvinist-Arminian disputes differently. My only point is that a plain-reading of the verse seems to imply that man cannot “find God” of his or her own volition, that God has to “draw” or “enable” those who come to him, and, as far as I can see, you seem to be affirming this. When you equated the decision to repent with one’s decision to wear pants or shorts in the morning, I got the impression you mean that God’s “enabling” or “drawing” need not occur at all.
We might just have been talking past each other this whole time.
Ronin,
I see it going like this: God enables whoever God enables for whatever reason. Then, should they accept, they repent. Either at that point or at the point of baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit. To be honest, I’m a little fuzzy on that latter point, and I need to read more. Obviously, the disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I’m open to suggestions, lest I speak presumptuously with the Bible.
I believe it boils down to acceptance of what God offers, e.g., initiates.
That snippet alone rubs me the wrong way, because I define regeneration as the process of becoming indwelt by the Holy Spirit, ala 2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” However…
…that part, taken alone, I have no problem with, and that statement seems perfectly compatible with John 6:44. Then, going back the other way…
…that rubs me the wrong way. Talk about a mess!
How do you define the difference?
Ronin
says...Do you think God enables everyone in order for them to repent?
I am open to suggestions too and I have no problem with the quote above.
Ronin
says...Well, it appears I goofed on the “blockquote” and I cannot edit, sorry.
Mike Gantt
says...“We might just have been talking past each other this whole time.”
cl, this sounds like a good place to end this particular thread as I don’t like to engage in the Calvinist-Arminian dialectic.
Mike Gantt
says...cl, I thought it might be useful to your post on this subject if I were to connect you to another blog that is also taking a look at universalism (though not my version of it). The site is The Tentative Apologist which is written by Randal Rauser. Randal is Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmunton. He’s an evangelical Christian who holds to the traditional heaven-or-hell scenario. That is, he is not a universalist. However, I think his views on the subject are quite interesting, and I thought you might appreciate knowing about them. Here are some of his recent posts that are relevant (they’re in chronological order with the most recent at the bottom – there is a logical flow):
Universalism isn’t a four letter word
Does universalism have a chance in hell of being true?
Hopeful Universalism and the Lottery Illustration
How exclusive should Christianity be?
Ronin
says...Mike,
Thanks for the links…