"It's Not Fair" so I will not believe it.

[Packrat]

In fact, not too long ago that doubt resurfaced and hasn't gone away just yet.

ok. it's gone now. :-D just took out some time for lunch when I was eating to examine the matter. I was having some doubts about God's willingness to save me because when I was not a Christian, I had sworn at God. My doubt was centered around Matthew 12:31. From Young's Literal Translation: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=15;

So the question is, what is considered evil speaking of the Spirit? Is it literal speaking (verbally)? Or is it a matter of the heart since all speech comes from the heart according to the Bible? Does evil speaking refer to blasphemy (as found in the New International Version): http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=31; or does it simply refer to throwing an insult at the Holy Spirit or at God as a whole rather than a single part of the Trinity? These are some of the things I've thought on. This may not be the right place to discuss this topic, but I'd certainly like to see any input on the matter with reasons supporting the way that you think.

 

[Dave...]

Pacrat, God will and already has forgiven you. The fact that you are concerned about it is very revealing in a positive way. If you are speaking about "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" = guaranteed damnation....I believe that that was a unique time and place. Those conditions no longer exist. I'm sure there are threads on it.

I have no luck with the search engine on this forum. Maybe the forum mod's could offer a course? :-D

I've probably gained more assurance of my salvation in God chastising me than anything else. He only chastises those He loves. :o All things work for the good of those who love Him. There's always an upside when God is moving in your life.

Dave

 

[unred typo]

My only problem with some people's perspectives on fairness and eternal life or eternal damnation is that some people try to attack it at the wrong angle and judge God from their individual perspective of fairness. In all honesty, God is fair in his dealings with us because he has created us. We are his to do with as he pleases. To state that God is fair is nearly common sense because he is God and he is the Creator of all things. If I created some sort of automoton with free will and it always chose to obey me, I would still be fair in my decision if I chose to destroy it.

No, you wouldn’t be fair. You would be an absolutely despotic supreme power with total control. No one could question your fairness but that’s not to say you are being fair. God created us with a sense of fairness, of right and wrong, and the Bible confirms this by the very fact that God demands it of us.

When I said: In my opinion, God's decisions in this matter have little to do with fairness, I said "little" to do with fairness. Fairness still may be an issue, but are our personal ideals of fairness to be used to examine God's motives for doing what he does? I don't mean to downplay God's fairness or justice, but who can argue against it?

No one can argue against what God calls fair, in the sense that he writes the rules, true, but let’s not misrepresent what he says the rules are. When God says we are to be holy as he is holy, he is setting our standard for fairness and right. In the potter/clay illustration, he is not saying that God determines who will spend eternity in heaven, he is saying that he is the only one in the position to use a person to do some evil or good and then know exactly how much of that person’s will was involved. He knows how much to hold that person accountable for his own actions. He reminds us that he knows what he is doing and we don’t have to worry about his fairness because he will take all conditions into account. His judgments are right and good, not arbitrary and evil.

You might call it my personal decision to trust him. Don't get me wrong. In the past, I've believed in both eternal damnation and the God as revealed in Scripture while still doubting his willingness to save me. In fact, not too long ago that doubt resurfaced and hasn't gone away just yet. It was this doubt that eventually caused me to take comfort in the fact or my prevalent belief that at least some people will make it - even if I and many others do not. By knowing that some would have joy, I had a measure of peace.

You should trust God but you need to stop thinking of him as a cosmic tyrant who randomly selects some for joy and lets the rest suffer for his good pleasure. God desires all to come to repentance and requires only that we love one another and obey him. His commands are not grievous. What does God require of us but to do justly (treat others as you would want to be treated) and to love mercy (forgive as you have been forgiven) and to walk humbly with your God? (don’t look down on others because you seek him and choose to please him) Micah 6:8

What is fair is that God judges us according to our treatment of others. He’s not going to allow rebellious or hateful people into his heavenly kingdom. As an old friend always said simply, “God don¢â‚¬â„¢t like ugly so be nice.â€Â

:-D

 

[Packrat]

No, you wouldn’t be fair. You would be an absolutely despotic supreme power with total control. No one could question your fairness but that’s not to say you are being fair.

There's a difference between fairness and benevolence just as there is a difference between justice and mercy. I could be fair in doing so, but that would not make me merciful. I would quite possibly be cruel.

God created us with a sense of fairness, of right and wrong, and the Bible confirms this by the very fact that God demands it of us.

Good point.

You should trust God but you need to stop thinking of him as a cosmic tyrant who randomly selects some for joy and lets the rest suffer for his good pleasure.

I believe that God is merciful. No one here has said that God is a tyrant whose decisions are illogical or random. I'm only saying that God can do whatever he wants with us and it will be fair. But what he can do and what he does do are two different things. God could have damned us all to hell and that would have been fair, but God has chosen to have mercy on us instead of treating us fairly as we deserve.

 

[unred typo]

There's a difference between fairness and benevolence just as there is a difference between justice and mercy. I could be fair in doing so, but that would not make me merciful. I would quite possibly be cruel.

You’re right. I believe that ‘fair’ does mean ‘just’. According to Encarta ® World English Dictionary:
Fair:
1. reasonable or unbiased: not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial
2. done properly: according to the rules
Just:
1. fair and impartial: acting with fairness and impartiality
2. morally correct: done, pursued, or given in accordance with what is morally right
3. reasonable: valid or reasonable

Do you really think it would be fair to choose some for heaven and leave the rest for hell, even if some going to heaven were despicably evil and some of those going to hell were completely innocent of intended malice toward others? Especially if you had promised eternal life to those who were good and forgiveness to those who repent (doing properly: according to the rules) ? And what does this ‘fair’ god do with babies, mentally incompetent or impaired (in accordance with what is morally right )?

If a world dictator had 2/3 of the population sent alive into a burning inferno, would you call him fair (reasonable) simply because he did it impartially? How about if he had made the requirement to escape the inferno that they had to jump to the moon? Is that reasonable? Would it be fair? Would the God of the Bible call that morally right? I think not.

God created us with a sense of fairness, of right and wrong, and the Bible confirms this by the very fact that God demands it of us.

Good point.

I think it is THE point. I suppose that you could claim our sense of fairness has been impaired by sin so that our thoughts are not his thoughts, but a thorough reading of the Bible will reveal that’s not the case. He tells us that we are to judge others rightly, allowing special consideration to the poor and physically impaired, and giving preferential treatment to the innocent and those who do good and live righteously. The scriptural query, “Will not the God of all the earth do rightly?†is a rhetorical question.

I believe that God is merciful. No one here has said that God is a tyrant whose decisions are illogical or random. I'm only saying that God can do whatever he wants with us and it will be fair. But what he can do and what he does do are two different things. God could have damned us all to hell and that would have been fair, but God has chosen to have mercy on us instead of treating us fairly as we deserve.

A true Calvinist will say that God has randomly chosen some to be damned and some to be saved. This is not being fair. All guilty of the same crime (breaking his law) should be punished equally, according to the degree of their sin. That would be fair and just. Choosing some of those who deserve to be punished for eternal bliss is not just. To be unbiased and fair, God must offer mercy to all and then judge all according to their ability to respond and perform.

 

[Dave...]

Do you really think it would be fair to choose some for heaven and leave the rest for hell, even if some going to heaven were despicably evil and some of those going to hell were completely innocent of intended malice toward others? Especially if you had promised eternal life to those who were good and forgiveness to those who repent (doing properly: according to the rules) ? And what does this ‘fair’ god do with babies, mentally incompetent or impaired (in accordance with what is morally right )?

If a world dictator had 2/3 of the population sent alive into a burning inferno, would you call him fair (reasonable) simply because he did it impartially? How about if he had made the requirement to escape the inferno that they had to jump to the moon? Is that reasonable? Would it be fair? Would the God of the Bible call that morally right? I think not.

All are guilty. "those going to hell were completely innocent of intended malice toward others?". This example doesn't apply for obvious reasons.

Here's the question that you need to ask....

If ten murderers are standing before a judge, all guilty. And the Judge pardons three of the men, the rest are put to death....have the seven been put to death unfairly? I say no, they are guilty. Have the three been given mercy when they didn't deserve it any more than the seven? Yes. That's grace. You want fairness, then we would all be condemned to hell.

A true Calvinist will say that God has randomly chosen some to be damned and some to be saved.

Straw man! I know that you know better, because you explain in your next quote, which clearly contradicts what you just wrote. Which is it. Random choice for hell? Or deserved damnation?

...All guilty of the same crime (breaking his law) should be punished equally, according to the degree of their sin. That would be fair and just. Choosing some of those who deserve to be punished for eternal bliss is not just. To be unbiased and fair, God must offer mercy to all and then judge all according to their ability to respond and perform.

Return to OP.

 

[unred typo]

All are guilty. "those going to hell were completely innocent of intended malice toward others?". This example doesn't apply for obvious reasons.

Not all people are malicious, Dave. Get real. You spend too much time in Baptist churches. :wink:

Here's the question that you need to ask....
If ten murderers are standing before a judge, all guilty. And the Judge pardons three of the men, the rest are put to death....have the seven been put to death unfairly? I say no, they are guilty. Have the three been given mercy when they didn't deserve it any more than the seven? Yes. That's grace. You want fairness, then we would all be condemned to hell.

That’s not grace. That’s unmitigated corruption in the judicial system. Are you equating God with a unlawful judge? God only acquits those who have repented of their sin. That would be those who he knows sincerely desire never to commit such things again. God says he will not justify the wicked. If one continues in wickedness, they will not be forgiven until they repent.

Straw man! I know that you know better, because you explain in your next quote, which clearly contradicts what you just wrote. Which is it. Random choice for hell? Or deserved damnation?

To be more accurate, some Calvinists know better, since they squirm and wiggle away when their beliefs are under the microscope. Let me clarify my statements. A Calvinist who believes that all are equally guilty, deserving of hell, also believes that those chosen from among those who are deservedly condemned are chosen randomly. Is this not true? So those who are left to be punished are also randomly chosen for hell by default. If you chose your eyes and randomly choose ‘B’ and ’D’, you also have randomly NOT chosen ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘E’.

Return to OP.

You mean this about not being able to perceive God’s judgments as just because they are past finding out? Ha. Romans 11:33 “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!†is not saying his judgments are unfair by human standards, but that he knows things that he uses to judge us by that no one else can know, for instance, what our motives are and how sincere we are in our beliefs. Man judges by outside appearance but God judges by the heart. Not all who are physically Israelites are spiritually the promised children of Abraham.

I think instead I’ll go back to my reply: Choosing some of those who deserve to be punished in hell and instead give them eternal bliss is not just. To be unbiased and fair, God must offer mercy to all and then judge all according to their ability to respond and perform.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

8-)

 

[Dave...]

If ten murderers are standing before a judge, all guilty. And the Judge pardons three of the men, the rest are put to death....have the seven been put to death unfairly? I say no, they are guilty.

You say they are innocent?

"You mean this about not being able to perceive God’s judgments as just because they are past finding out? Ha. Romans 11:33 “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!†is not saying his judgments are unfair by human standards, but that he knows things that he uses to judge us by that no one else can know,..."

My point exactly. Fallible man cannot claim unfairness to something he cannot fully comprehend. We trust in God's Word alone.

 

[unred typo]

If ten murderers are standing before a judge, all guilty. And the Judge pardons three of the men, the rest are put to death....have the seven been put to death unfairly? I say no, they are guilty. …You say they are innocent?

No, all are guilty, and unless they repent, they should not be acquitted. To set a murderer free who intends to kill again is not just, not mercy, not grace, it’s insanity and a total miscarriage
of justice.

My point exactly. Fallible man cannot claim unfairness to something he cannot fully comprehend. We trust in God's Word alone.

Cop out. We can comprehend the idea of justice, it’s determining who should be punished and how much that is beyond our abilities. How often do we execute and imprison the wrong man? Lord only knows. We can trust in God alone to judge rightly and know how to sort out the wicked from the just. Things in this life may not be fair but in the end, all things will be made right. Everyone will be judged by his works and his abilities to do what God gave him to do. Of whom much was given, much will be required.

:o

 

[Packrat]

I believe that God is merciful. No one here has said that God is a tyrant whose decisions are illogical or random. I'm only saying that God can do whatever he wants with us and it will be fair. But what he can do and what he does do are two different things. God could have damned us all to hell and that would have been fair, but God has chosen to have mercy on us instead of treating us fairly as we deserve.

The point that I'm trying to get across is that it is fair for God to do whatever he wants with his things. I understand where fairness comes into play, but I believe we are talking about two different instances of fairness.

You are saying that it would not be fair to a righteous person to damn them to hell and then to save a wicked person. You are right. If we are going by good works and a scale of fairness, then that righteous person deserves eternal life more than the wicked person. Of course we know that there are no innately righteous people out there, so this is a hypothetical situation.

I am saying that if God created something, it is fair for him to save it or destroy it or to do whatever he wants with it because it is his. So it would be unfair to the righteous individual if God chose to damn that righteous person to hell and save the wicked person, but it would be fair for God to do such a thing because he has made both the righteous and the wicked. I believe my situation to be hypothetical as well, since I believe that God would not damn a righteous person to hell. But both of our points are valid in my opinion.

So when God says that he is a fair or just God, I have the tendency to think that he is talking about being fair and just to us. As for God's decisions with respect to the authority to do whatever he wants with his creation, it should be understood that any choice he makes would be fair and just.

 

[Dave...]

No, all are guilty, and unless they repent, they should not be acquitted. To set a murderer free who intends to kill again is not just, not mercy, not grace, it’s insanity and a total miscarriage
of justice.

God gives repentance, it's a gift. Also, you have ephesians 1:4 to deal with, just for starters.

Cop out. We can comprehend the idea of justice, it’s determining who should be punished and how much that is beyond our abilities. How often do we execute and imprison the wrong man? Lord only knows. We can trust in God alone to judge rightly and know how to sort out the wicked from the just. Things in this life may not be fair but in the end, all things will be made right. Everyone will be judged by his works and his abilities to do what God gave him to do. Of whom much was given, much will be required.

I believe that I answered this already. We are going in circles now. This discussion I'm having with you is really beginning to be pointless.

Peace

 

[unred typo]

The point that I'm trying to get across is that it is fair for God to do whatever he wants with his things. I understand where fairness comes into play, but I believe we are talking about two different instances of fairness.

Are we saying God has two kinds of fairness? What is fair between human beings, how we treat one another and what is fair between God and human beings, how he treats us? Are you saying God has a double standard for justice? Nono, Packrat, don’t say that.

You are saying that it would not be fair to a righteous person to damn them to hell and then to save a wicked person. You are right. If we are going by good works and a scale of fairness, then that righteous person deserves eternal life more than the wicked person. Of course we know that there are no innately righteous people out there, so this is a hypothetical situation.

Where do we find in scripture that there are no righteous people? God has called many people righteous. I could site hundreds of examples where God makes a distinction between the righteous and the wicked throughout scripture. You probably have a couple of psalms and quotes taken out of context. Let’s examine your ‘proof’ verses in context. What exactly are they?

I am saying that if God created something, it is fair for him to save it or destroy it or to do whatever he wants with it because it is his. So it would be unfair to the righteous individual if God chose to damn that righteous person to hell and save the wicked person, but it would be fair for God to do such a thing because he has made both the righteous and the wicked. I believe my situation to be hypothetical as well, since I believe that God would not damn a righteous person to hell. But both of our points are valid in my opinion.

Let me get this straight. :smt017 Are you saying that it is God who made the righteous people to be righteous and the wicked people to be wicked and they have nothing to do with it? And then he commands all to be righteous, knowing that some are made to be wicked? And then you say God will damn some of the righteous people he made to eternal torment, and reward some of the wicked people he made with eternal bliss? And you say this is fair and just? :smt115 Okayyyy. I can see why you think both our points are valid. You must come from the planet Calvinus where right is sometimes wrong and sometimes right and wrong is sometimes right and sometimes wrong and God is always right even when he does wrong things because he says so. And all of this makes sense because he says so, and we can’t comprehend it because he likes to confuse us because he made us wicked and we should be punished for that, unless he made us righteous and only if we are some of the righteous that are going to be chosen for salvation and not the wicked righteous who are going to be damned with the rest of the wicked wicked who are not going to be the ones who were created wicked to be saved in spite of their wickedness. Right. Correct me if I’m not understanding what you’re saying. :smt120

So when God says that he is a fair or just God, I have the tendency to think that he is talking about being fair and just to us. As for God's decisions with respect to the authority to do whatever he wants with his creation, it should be understood that any choice he makes would be fair and just.

No, I think when God says he is fair and just, he means exactly what he says. And when he says he is going to judge us according to our works, he is going to do exactly that. And all of the double talk in the world is not going to change it. He has given us a choice and an ability to make that choice in spite of all our efforts to place the blame on Him, our situation, the devil, our parents, religious and doctrinal errors, the media, the economy, our hormones, the IRS, our addictions, peer pressure, the weather, what we ate for dinner, the unavailability of good help, our financial condition, the dog’s bad habits or any other thing, real or imagined, we are responsible for our actions and our choices to make those actions. I also believe he is so fair and just, he will take all of our extenuating circumstances into account and come out with such a fair and just judgment that even we will agree. In fact, every knee will bend and every head will bow.

And guess what else? He wrote this fair and just law on every person’s heart so there will be no excuses. It is simply to treat others as you would want them to treat you, and to love one another as he has loved us.
:smt023

 

[unred typo]

God gives repentance, it's a gift. Also, you have ephesians 1:4 to deal with, just for starters.

I don’t see any verses that prove that “repentance is a gift.†Repentance is allowed, as a gift, yes. If I’m angry with you because of some wrong you did against me, I can choose to forgive you if you come and ask forgiveness, but that is a gift, not something that I must do. If you repay what you have stolen or somehow make just recompense for the wrong you did, perhaps you could demand forgiveness, but it still would be my choice whether to forgive you or not.

When God forgives us, even if he demands us to make some kind of restitution, it is still a gift. You all act like it’s not a gift of God just to be forgiven, but also that this gift must be an unconditional blanket forgiveness, covering all your past, present and future sins in order to be worthy of your acceptance. You speak of “accepting the gift of God’s forgiveness.†Excuse me for being appalled, but you are in for a rude awakening at your demise. Your attitude is completely wrong. You are acting as if you’re doing God a favor by taking advantage of his big sale on wholesale grace.

Ephesians 1:4 says that God made a decision that those who follow Christ’s example of sacrificial love would become his children by a process of sanctification that has been made possible by the death of his Son. You have turned this verse inside out to make it fit your warped theology.

I believe that I answered this already. We are going in circles now. This discussion I'm having with you is really beginning to be pointless.
Peace

You may believe you have answered it, but what we got was an evasion of the question before. It hasn’t been answered. We are going in circles. I refute your feeble excuse for an interpretation, and you make some equally feeble reply and when I answer that, you pretend you already established your doctrine and refer back to a non existent repudiation. And you’re wrong about it being pointless. It shows just how bankrupt and devoid of scriptural truth your doctrines are.

:roll:

 

[Drew]

I am saying that if God created something, it is fair for him to save it or destroy it or to do whatever he wants with it because it is his.

Hi Packrat (and others):

I have always found this argument puzzling - the notion that a being (God in this case) can do "whatever He wants" with something simply by virtue of being its creator. We would never apply this kind of thinking in the real world of day to day experience, I would suggest.

Suppose that a brilliant scientist develops the technology to make a new kind of animal from a set of chemicals in the lab. Suppose further that we know that this created animal has the ability to experience pain. If we learned that the scientist was subjecting this creature to pain (without an identifiable justification, such as a surgery to make the animal well), we would, as a society be outraged. And rightly so. Although I suppose I cannot "prove" this, I hold it to be a morally self-evident truth that "creatorship" is not, by itself, a license to whatever one wants to the created being.

I am, frankly, mystified by the appeal of Calvinism. I find that the whole theology seems built on a small number of verses, dubiously interpreted. And what's more, the ideas that it entails are at such strong variance with our intutions about justice, that it seems entirely unworkable - that people can believe it only by sheer power of the will and against their deepest intuitions about notions of justice.

Consider the following text from Luke:

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

I think this text supports the idea that while we are indeed evil, we are not so entirely corrupted that we have entirely lost our moral sense. To me, this means that our deeply held intuitions about justice and fairness are probably reasonably sound. Therefore, I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would ascribe to ideas (such as many Calvinist ideas) that are so violently at odds with what I suspect we all know in our hearts to be true.

 

[Guest]

Hi Packrat (and others):

Suppose that a brilliant scientist develops the technology to make a new kind of animal from a set of chemicals in the lab. Suppose further that we know that this created animal has the ability to experience pain. If we learned that the scientist was subjecting this creature to pain (without an identifiable justification, such as a surgery to make the animal well), we would, as a society be outraged. And rightly so. Although I suppose I cannot "prove" this, I hold it to be a morally self-evident truth that "creatorship" is not, by itself, a license to whatever one wants to the created being.

First - while I understand that you are using this as an illustration, can we use one that is probable and even possible. For example: let's say a woodworker creates a beautiful, hand crafted desk - or an artists creates a masterpiece - should they not have the 'right' to do with it what they please? They are the one who created it.

Realize that too, we do not 'create' in the way God created. We merely use things that have already been created and manipulate them - 'nothing new is being created'.

Consider the following text from Luke:

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

I think this text supports the idea that while we are indeed evil, we are not so entirely corrupted that we have entirely lost our moral sense. To me, this means that our deeply held intuitions about justice and fairness are probably reasonably sound. Therefore, I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would ascribe to ideas (such as many Calvinist ideas) that are so violently at odds with what I suspect we all know in our hearts to be true.

Consider this verse from Romans:

Romans 3:9-18

Does this not teach that noone is righteous before the eyes of God?

That the result of 'original sin' was total depravitiy? That the only reason we have anything 'good' within us is because of the regeneration of Christ?

Even our 'good works', apart from Christ, are seen as 'dirty rags.' (The precise definition is that of menstural rags).

Can one say that they give merely out of the 'goodness of their heart'? Isn't there even a hint of pride that creeps in when we do 'good'?

 

[Drew]

Hello aLoneVoice:

I am not that crazy about shifting the analogy to a woodpecker making a desk or an artist creating a masterpiece. These are not created entities that can suffer - and that is central here. Do you really think that God has the "moral" right to do whatever He wants to a being that He has created, simply by virtue of the fact that He is the creator?

As far as the Romans text regarding total depravity, I see no reason to conclude that total depravity from that particular text. Although I admit what I am about say needs to be more robustly defended, the impression I got from reading this text is that Paul is using a form of literary exaggeration to underscore the fact that both Jew and Gentile are in the same boat. To do this, he engages in a little poetic license much like we do when we say something like: "Women are just as selfish as men, we are all out for our own interests - no one is seeking the welfare of others".

When we say something like this, we do not really believe that each man and each woman is 100 % selfish - that there is no selflessness at all in people. The exaggeration underscores the equal status of men and women as being generally selfish.

My view, of course, could be challenged on the grounds that I should read the text in a strict literal sense. And in a strict technical sense, the text does suggest a kind of total depravity. Fair enough, but this cuts both ways and I would suggest that Calvinists should only go down that road at their own peril....(consider 2 Kings 20, a literal reading of which clearly shows that God does not know the future perfectly).

 

[Guest]

Hello aLoneVoice:

I am not that crazy about shifting the analogy to a woodpecker making a desk or an artist creating a masterpiece. These are not created entities that can suffer - and that is central here. Do you really think that God has the "moral" right to do whatever He wants to a being that He has created, simply by virtue of the fact that He is the creator?

You are right, I am not that crazy about shifting the analogy to a woodpecker either :-D

Yes, I believe that God as a moral right to do with his creation as he sees fit - however, because God is God - I do not believe that He can act in a way that would violate ANY of His attributes. Therefore, I do not believe that he would act in such as way as a vindictive creator - much as it sounds like you are describing God.

God acts in concert with all His attributes - therefore, I do not believe he would be cause harm just because he was the Creator.

As far as the Romans text regarding total depravity, I see no reason to conclude that total depravity from that particular text. Although I admit what I am about say needs to be more robustly defended, the impression I got from reading this text is that Paul is using a form of literary exaggeration to underscore the fact that both Jew and Gentile are in the same boat. To do this, he engages in a little poetic license much like we do when we say something like: "Women are just as selfish as men, we are all out for our own interests - no one is seeking the welfare of others".

When we say something like this, we do not really believe that each man and each woman is 100 % selfish - that there is no selflessness at all in people. The exaggeration underscores the equal status of men and women as being generally selfish.

Realize that through Total Depravity one is not saying that we as humans have actually done every depraved activity. Rather, it says that there is nothing 'good within us'.

Why would we need a Saviour if there was still good within us? It would be conceivable to say then that a person could act only out of his 'good nature'. Why would that person need a savior?

My view, of course, could be challenged on the grounds that I should read the text in a strict literal sense. And in a strict technical sense, the text does suggest a kind of total depravity. Fair enough, but this cuts both ways and I would suggest that Calvinists should only go down that road at their own peril....(consider 2 Kings 20, a literal reading of which clearly shows that God does not know the future perfectly).

Is there something specifically in 2 Kings 20 you are referring too?

 

[Drew]

Realize that through Total Depravity one is not saying that we as humans have actually done every depraved activity. Rather, it says that there is nothing 'good within us'.

I agree with your first sentence but disagree with the second. I think that the Luke text I quoted basically disproves the notion that "there is nothing good in us". Do you dispute that this text asserts that unredeemed man knows how to do good things? I cannot imagine how one would argue against what seems to be a pretty clear claim that fallen (evil) men do indeed know how to do some good things. But, please, you are welcome to try to reconcile this text with the notion of total depravity.

As for 2 Kings 20, I refer you to the first part of the chapter. I have bolded relevant material:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

Do you not see how the "literal" reading of this suggests that God changed his mind in response to Hezekiah's prayer, suggesting that the futures is not exhaustively settled in God's mind and that God indeed does "change His mind"? I have no trouble with thia but it poses a serious challenge to a Calvinist. I have raised this text repeatedly in these forums and the responses from the "God knows the future fully" camp have ranged from the outright ridiculous to the somewhat reasonable.

However, and this is a key point, the only plausible ways that have been presented to reconcile this text with the "God knows the future fully" position have required a departure from a striclty literalist reading. This concession always seems to come back to bite the person who uses it - people want to pick and choose which texts they take literally and which they do not.

 

[Guest]

I agree with your first sentence but disagree with the second. I think that the Luke text I quoted basically disproves the notion that "there is nothing good in us". Do you dispute that this text asserts that unredeemed man knows how to do good things? I cannot imagine how one would argue against what seems to be a pretty clear claim that fallen (evil) men do indeed know how to do some good things. But, please, you are welcome to try to reconcile this text with the notion of total depravity.

Drew - Total Depravity does not mean that every action someone does is 'evil'. Rather, it means that even in our 'good deeds' they are depraved.

Consider: When you do 'good' do you feel pride for doing 'good'? That pride can be a sin issue.

Again I will ask - if we have good within us apart from regeneration of Christ - then why do we need a Saviour? Could we not operate out of our good nature only?

As for 2 Kings 20, I refer you to the first part of the chapter. I have bolded relevant material:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

Does God change? Or is he the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow? (Hebrews 13:8)

 

[Drew]

Drew - Total Depravity does not mean that every action someone does is 'evil'. Rather, it means that even in our 'good deeds' they are depraved.

I have always found the "even our good deeds are depraved" view to be somewhat suspect. I think that both the Scriptures and the empirical experiences of life suggest that humans in their natural state are a mix of good and bad. I have already responded as to why I do not think that the Romans 3 text supports total depravity. The data of life indeed shows us that the unredeemed do sometimes act out of genuine good intentions. One can always construct a theory that all their seemingly good acts spring out of a depraved nature. I think that this is an awkward and unworkable explanation and seems to be at clear variance with teachings like the following:

Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Besides, I have yet to see convincing Scriptural evidence for the notion of total depravity (at least what I understand this doctrine to entail). I find the argument that "total depravity underlies the seemingly good works of unredeemed men" argument to be as awkward as the anti-free will argument that all commands like "choose this day whom you will follow" are really contingent upon God providing men the "ability" to make such choices.