My suggestions for newly minted Calvinists...

There was a time, over a decade ago, when someone introduced me to the Doctrines of Grace. For a few years after that moment, the amazing truth of God's exhaustive sovereignty was all I sought to talk about. When the church I was attending made it clear that Calvinism was unwelcome, I left and found a church where the pastor was Calvinistic, soon he was out and the Purpose Driven movement took root, I fought what I saw was (and truly is) an affront to God's Word and sovereignty and eventually was pushed to the periphery of the church. My wife and I sought a new church and found one that was confessional, and true to the Word of God.

Given these experiences, I have a few suggestions for those folks who find themselves newly exposed to the concepts of Calvinism, the Reformed understanding of the faith and the Doctrines of Grace in general.

One caveat... most of these points refer to where you are NOW. The intention is to get you solid food, grow you in the faith, and prepare you for your purpose in the economy of God.

1. Realize there is more to Reformed theology then just TULIP. - Reformed theology covers the gamut of theological concepts from soteriology (the understanding of how salvation occurs) to eschatology (the end times.) Don't be so focused on TULIP that you miss the foundations for it.
2. Beware the desire for crusade - You may feel compelled to reform your Arminian or Purpose-Driven megachurch. RESIST THE URGE. While your intention may be good, your methods and understanding of God's plan and purpose is probably muddled. I recommend discussing Calvinism with your elders/pastors and if they're opposed to it lovingly and calmly notify them that you intend to seek membership elsewhere. Put a damper on your desire to fight or argue until you are firmly established and being fed the Gospel weekly.
3. Do find a solid, confessional Reformed church. -Try here, here , here or here. Your initial desire once you leave your old church will be to find a Reformed or Calvinistic church that fits your chosen worship style etc. I recommend getting out of your comfort zone, visit a confessionally Reformed church. Notice the traditions therein and feel free to ask an elder or pastor after the service why they do church the way they do. You may find the hymns stuffy, the service rigid, the prayers long... but there are probably good, Biblical reasons why the church does what it does. Since you're on this quest to conform to a more Biblical position, perhaps there are other areas of theology that you might need to likewise conform.
4. Read, Read, Read - There is a vast treasury of Reformed knowledge and tradition freely available. Do not be afraid to explore concepts outside of your current position. If you're a Baptist, read paedobaptist literature to understand their position, it will help you defend your own. Likewise, if you're a Dispensationalist, read as to why Covenantal Amillennialists believe what they believe.
5. LOVE - You may find yourself debating everyone. Temper this urge. Remember that you are to explain the truth IN LOVE. It is hard to show love when you're yelling at someone. Be aware that what you now believe is completely foreign to most folks, and it will require supernatural intervention for them to accept it. Use the "Columbo method" in discussion, ask questions about passages of Scripture, be slow to interject. Learn to listen.
6. Avoid debates on minor issues. - It's fine to discuss, it's fine to debate, but avoid meaningless debates. Don't debate atheists on minutia, give them the Gospel and move on. Recognize that no matter how good your arguments are, how sound your logic, how eloquent your message... unless the Spirit of God opens their heart, they will not, and cannot understand or believe what you're saying. The only means by which they can come to understanding is through the clear proclamation of the Gospel, and that should be your primary intent. There are times and places for public debate and even those well gifted for it, right after you change positions is not that time.

I'm sure there are more, and others will add some. Think about this and let me know what you think.

The Church and Israel - A Scriptural Perspective

A week or so a go a newly minted Calvinist entered the #prosapologian chat room and had some "questions" regarding Covenant Theology. (Just a note for those of you with well formed opinions, don't say "I have a few questions" and then open up with a cannon volley.)  After some discussion it was clear that our definition of "Israel" was quite different. My friend RazorsKiss and I decided to engage this fellow and chose to move it to an email discussion. They sent the first email (which I won't post here) but since RK was busy, I wrote the first reply. What follows is the text of my reply.

Baptism Debates - Paedocommunion discussions

Found a great resource on these topics including debates and discussions:

Baptism
9 November 2007 - Topic: BAPTISM
#33 - Baptism and the Covenant
Dr. Gregg Strawbridge and Dr. James White debate the issues of Baptism and the Covenant. Part 1 - 64 MIN; Part 2 - 73 MIN

13 December 2007 - Topic: BAPTISM
#36 - Believer's Baptism
Dr. Thomas Schreiner

3 January 2008 - Topic: Baptism
#40 - Why Baptize Babies?
Pastor Mark Horne





Padeocommunion

14 November 2006 - Topic: COMMUNION
#3 - Introduction to Covenant Communion
Covenant Communion is discussed with Pastor Gregg Strawbridge. 63 MIN

 29 April 2009
#77 - Children at the Lord's Table?
Dr. Cornelis Venema




14 November 2006 - Topic: COMMUNION
#3 - Introduction to Covenant Communion
Covenant Communion is discussed with Pastor Gregg Strawbridge. 63 MIN




General

25 June 2007
#87 - Recovering the Reformed Confession
Dr. R. Scott Clark joins Covenant Radio to discuss his book Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice

Baptism and Communion... Circumcision and Passover

My friend, Turretinfan has posted a response to Dr. White who wrote in response to R Scott Clark's reponse to my last post. (Got it?) In this post, Turretinfan states:

The unbloody sign of baptism replaces the bloody sign of circumcision (just as the unbloody Lord's Supper replaces the bloody Passover).

 Therefore, if you're keeping score, circumcision = baptism, passover =Lord's Supper.

Now, most Paedobaptists (specifically Reformed ones) baptize infants on the basis of the infants inclusion in the covenant of grace via the infant's parent's faith. That is, because of Federal Headship, that is, because the federal head (father) of the household is a believer all those in the household should be baptized. This concept came out in the debate between Pastor Bill Shisko and Dr. White a while back. Pastor Shisko stated that because the father of a household believed, everyone in the household should be baptized, regardless of faith (including teenaged unbelievers.)

However, when it comes to the Supper, these same folks note that Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11 that those who partake of the Supper are to do so in a worthy manner and that "he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly". Their claim is therefore that since Scripture demands that one be able to "judge the body rightly" (NASB) and those who partake without "discerning the body" (ESV) do in fact "eats and drinks judgment on himself". Thus they view that only those who have professed faith and are able to "discern the body" are proper recipients of the Supper.

The report by the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) on Paedocommunion of 1987 also makes the connection of Communion to the Passover stating (this report was not adopted by the OPC):

The Passover was in some sense transformed into the Lord's Supper.

In the words of institution our Lord transformed the words used at the covenant-instituting meal at Sinai (Ex. 24). (one exception)...

Children did participate in the first Passover, and were at least permitted to participate in subsequent celebrations of it, while in the New Testament there is no explicit prohibition or command regarding the participation of children in the Lord's Supper. (one exception)

The interchangeability of Old Testament and New Testament sacramental terminology demonstrates the fundamental unity of the covenant (and its sacraments). Cf. I Cor. 5:7; 10:2; Col. 2:11

As there was a definitive Passover and then a commemorative, so there was a definitive Lord's Supper and then a commemorative; in both cases the latter was the celebration of an accomplished redemption.

It should be clear therefore that Presbyterians (and the Dutch Reformed who argue likewise) view Communion as the fulfilled type of Passover. Note also that this report recognizes that children partook of passover and that the OT and NT sacramental terminology is interchangeable and there is "fundamental unity of the covenant (and its sacraments).  Yet they recognize that 1 Corinthians 11 requires some responsibility on the part of the partaker to "discern the body", that is that the elements being served are representations of Christ's shed body and blood and in such are holy things that God uses as means of grace to His people.

[ Baptists who have trouble with this last bit should take into account Keach's Catechism, a baptist catechism created by one of the writers of the London Baptist Confession of Faith wherein he writes:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
...

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

The Baptists of the 17th century had no difficulty with covenantal and sacramental language as commonly used by their paedobaptist brethren. I encourage Baptist believers to read Keach's Catechism as well as the LBCF if this terminology troubles them.  ]

Within the past few decades the debate within Protestant Paedobaptist circles over the issue of paedocommunion has been no small matter. No less than R. C. Sproul Jr., son of respected Presbyterian pastor, teacher and Reformed celebrity R.C. Sproul, has taken the position that consistent understanding of covenantal theology requires paedocommunion as the counterpart to paedobaptism. That is, if baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant and the Lord's Supper is the Passover of the New Covenant, and if infants and children were the right recipients in the Old Covenant administration, then they are the proper recipients of the means of grace in the New Covenant administration. They believe therefore that since federal headship is the means by which a infant is considered the proper subject of baptism, and since both baptism and the Supper are "means of grace", and since the Old Testament pattern is that infants and children were proper subjects of both circumcision and the passover, they should likewise be the proper subjects of the New Covenant fulfillment of those types. The "Federal Vision" movement reignited this debate to some extent with many of whom this label has been applied to taking the paedocommunionist viewpoint. 

We Baptists agree with our paedobaptist brethren of the anti-paedocommunion stripe in this one point, that faith is in fact a requirement for communion. 1 Corinthians 11 clearly expresses the view that one must be able to generally understand what is going on to be considered a right recipient of the elements.

We however believe that the Scriptural pattern, time and again is that one is to "believe and be baptized" (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 , Acts 8:12, Acts 18:8, etc.) and that one is to "repent and be baptized". We do not believe that Acts 2:39, usually partially quoted, provides any support for the view that faith is not a requirement of baptism. In fact, we note that there is much, much more support in Scripture for the view that faith is a requirement of baptism than there is for faith being a requirement of the Supper. If one is just looking content-wise, the number of verses relating baptism and faith far outnumber those for faith and communion.

That said, one must wonder why, if one can have the sign and seal of the New Covenant administered to them without their believing, and in fact (as some argue) even if they're unbelieving members of a believing household, on the basis of federal headship, why federal headship does not apply in the one sign that Christ Himself calls "the New Covenant in my blood". Why, if federal headship alone dismisses all the requirements of faith for baptism in Scripture does it not also apply to the Supper? Surely the faith of the federal head of the family, and their ability to discern the body, can apply for the Supper as well as baptism?

Why is there unity in the sign of circumcision but disunity in the sign of passover? Why are infants and children denied these means of grace?

I would like to suggest that it is simply inconsistent for paedobaptists to administer baptism to their children on the basis of federal headship and yet deny them the body and blood of our Savior. I would also like to suggest that this inconsistency shows a major crack in their argument for paedobaptism, for when it comes to the Supper they argue like Baptists demanding evidence of faith before allowing them at the table.

Dr. White, in his debate with Pastor Shisko asked about the nature of the New Covenant and why infants and children baptized therein are lost if they truly considered "in" the New Covenant. I don't believe he got an adequate answer then. I also note that a post-debate follow-up in the New Horizons magazine Pastor Shisko wrote:

We should stop using the term "paedobaptism" (baptism of infants) and use the more biblical expression "oikobaptism" (baptism of households). The point is not that infants were baptized in the New Testament, but that whole households were baptized.... Certainly in the missionary context of Acts, there had to be faith in new converts to Christianity before they could receive the sign and seal of Christian baptism (in the same way that Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision only after he believed the promises of God, Rom. 4:11-12). But even as whole families were received as part of the covenant people in all previous ages, so that pattern continues in the New Testament. If, in fact, this household principle was abrogated in the new covenant, one would not expect the household formula to be used as it is in the New Testament.

Yet in the very next month's issue the following was written by James T. Dennison about paedocommunion:

But we dare not admit children without a credible profession of faith. Far from bestowing privileges of blessing upon them, to do so is to hang millstones about their necks.

In that same issue Stuart R. Jones wrote:

Precisely how much discernment a child is capable of and how much understanding is necessary for worthy participation is another matter. The new covenant is simultaneously more accessible and deeper than the old covenant. The demands of the new law are simpler and more far-reaching as the royal law of love. The call to daily cross-bearing is more far-reaching than rabbinic parsing of Old Testament law.

The strange, inconsistent nature of this argument should be evident without much further posting. Even though there is not a single verse in Scripture commanding, commending or even suggesting the baptism of infants, and in fact many, many verses clearly stating the pattern of "believe and be baptized", paedobaptists argue that infants and children should be baptized in the New Covenant because they were circumcised in the Old. And yet, though infants and children partook of the passover meal in the Old Covenant, since there is one passage stating that one should "discern the body" as a requirement for partaking the Supper, they bar the table to infants.


Finally, I want to note the nature of the paedobaptist argument against the Baptist position. As seen in R. Scott Clark's replies to my previous post, there seems to be a lot of rhetorical dishonesty in regard to how Baptists both view other believers and their own children. Just as Clark declared that " According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian" Pastor Shisko calls into doubt the Baptist's love and care for their children, or belief in the saving nature of the New Covenant saying "Baptist views cannot account for the language used of children in the New Testament. While it is true that Jesus did not baptize little children, what did he mean when he took little children and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven"" and "On a Baptist model, how is it that children are included among "the saints" in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 (cf. Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2)?". Both of these men have enough contact with Reformed Baptists to know that these statements and these questions are illegitimate. Reformed Baptists believe that Protestant Paedobaptists are believers, we also believe that God saves children of believers by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, with or without their baptism or partaking of the Supper. Again, Baptists believe that their children may in fact be members of the New Covenant, we do not require a profession of faith to "prove that one is elect" or "regenerate", rather, we note the clear pattern of Scripture that those who profess faith are the proper recipients of both baptism and the Supper. Furthermore we suggest that, given the nature of their argument against paedocommunion they recognize that our argument against paedobaptism is identical in nature. Thus either their argument against our position is untenable or their argument against paedocommunion is, but they cannot have it both ways.

Update:

I found another article by R. Scott Clark on infant baptism in which he states:

Passover (like the other feasts) differed from circumcision, however, in the same way that baptism and the LORD's supper differ: circumcision, the first covenant sign was applied to infants and adults alike, and was a mark of entrance into God's covenant people. The Passover feast was restricted to those who are able to understand God's redeeming acts because it was a sign designed to nurture and lead to growth.

 Yet the OPC states:

Children did participate in the first Passover, and were at least permitted to participate in subsequent celebrations of it.

Who is right?

Ergun Caner's LaffOlympics

Ergun Caner got wiff of Sacred Sandwich's spoof of his foolishness and decided to retort.

The problem is, Sacred Sandwich's spoof is based on the man's own words, whereas his is based on strawman argumentation, again proving that Arminians simply cannot objectively deal with their opponents claims nor Scripture itself.

Thus, Caner's spoof is nothing more than the theological equivelent of the old grade school quip "I know you are but what am I?"

Ergun Caner remains a dishonest man who's teaching is contrary to the word of God.

Ergun Caner Redefines Redefinition

While Emir Caner seems to have had the sense to remove his offensive and dishonest blog post (oops, it's back!), Ergun Caner's latest post on his website shows the kind of redefinition and dishonesty that seems to be indigenous to Arminians. It seems that not a single Arminian church leader, author or seminary president can refrain from sleight of hand or simple dishonesty when discussing matters of Calvinistic doctrine. Whether in their sermons, where they redefine historically defined terms such as "hyper-Calvinism" to their own liking, debates, where they ignore the actual position of their opponents and build strawmen of the corpse of Servetus, or in discussion where they unfailingly will fall victim to Godwin's Law.

Today, again, Ergun Caner proves that he is no different from the rest. (Even Dave Hunt had the veracity to have his ignorance displayed on the pages of a book.) When not redefining historic terms, Ergun Caner is rewriting history, conspicuously leaving out specific facts to make his position seem better. Yes, it is true that "James White found the rules imposed by the moderator, Brett O’Donnell, to be unacceptable...", but Ergun leaves out the fact that this was only after Mr. "talk-as-fast-as-you-can-to-win-a-debate" O'Donnell unilaterally changed the agreed upon format and demanded sole rights to the debate recordings.

Someone needs to remind Ergun Caner that LYING BY OMISSION IS STILL LYING.

Next Mr. Caner mentions “Johnny” Hunt’s nomination to presidency of the SBC. He goes on to mention how the “Baptists are Calvinists” websites started blistering him”… (play violins here.) Well the fact of the matter is that Dr. Hunt had recently preached a “sermon” wherein he misrepresented Calvinism similarly to Caner’s own sermons at the Thomas Rd. Baptist Church. Again, can these men accurately represent their “brother” and “sister” Baptists in Christ, or are they incapable of telling the truth?

Consider this little gem of disinformation: To the question, “Q: ALL OF THIS SEEMS SO MEAN SPIRITED. WHY HAVE YOU RESPONDED?” Caner responds “Because the manner in which Dr White has thrown statements and accusations around unanswered. He calls Dr. Geisler an “Arminian,” even though he is a moderate Calvinist.”

While Mr. Geisler single-handedly DEFINED the word “moderate-Calvinist”, it really means “a position identical to that of “Arminians” and has no historical weight or value. If Caner thinks Geisler is a “moderate-Calvinist”, what was Calvin? Spurgeon? John MacArthur!!??

Caner then posits the following question, “Q: HOW DO YOU DEFINE HYPER CALVINIST?” Caner responds to his faux questioner:

“If a person holds to reprobation, this is a clear sign. If anyone believes that God has created souls damned to hell, and predestined them to hell, then they would be a poster child for Hyper Calvinism.”

Of course asking a subjective question like this is akin to asking Bill Clinton “how do you define sex”, but apart from that Caner’s answer shows that he hasn’t an ounce of integrity in him. If he bothered to pick up a theological dictionary he’d fine the real definition for the word and stop this asinine game… even wikipedia (for once) gets this right. Why is it such a challenge for Ergun Caner, and others, to accurately define words and the positions they’re arguing against? Because, that would mean they would expose the underlying inconsistencies and downright unbiblical aspects of their belief systems to scrutiny.

Caner goes on:

“A second point would be the issue of infant damnation. Drs. Akin and Mohler have been explicit on the fact that if an infant dies, they go to heaven. Dr. White does not believe it is that “simple.” If anyone believes that there is even the possibility of an infant (”non-elect”) going to hell, that would be clear hyper Calvinism. Since they do not like that term, I have also offered neo-Calvinist. Apparently that isn’t acceptable either.”

As I’ve shown in my own blog postings, this issue is one in which many Calvinists disagree. Regardless of one’s position on this topic, it in no way has anything to do with the definition of “hyper-Calvinism”. In fact, even while disagreeing on this topic, said Calvinists can still remain in fellowship, whereas we separate from those who are true hyper-calvinists. None of this stops Caner from posting it though; he goes right on redefining historic terms.

As to Mohler’s position on the topic, I believe I have shown it to be quite Pelagian in this one aspect. I also challenge Ergun Caner or any other person who sympathizes with his position on universal infant salvation to read my posts here and at calvinistgadfly.com and respond Biblically.

“Those who fit in that category usually define “hyper Calvinist” in terms of an ethic - they say that since we cannot know the fixed number, we tell everyone. They call it a “well-intentioned offer.” That is simply poor logic.”

Get a grip, Ergun. You’re the president of a seminary. Doesn’t your library have a theological dictionary, or a least one history book? Surely you should know that a hyper-Calvinist is one who denies a “well-intentioned offer”. This is simply inexcusable and would be laughable if not coming from a seminary president. I expect such misrepresentation from Internet pseudo-apologists and adolescent bloggers, but one would hope that the president of Liberty Seminary would be able to accurately define such terms.

Q: HOW DO YOU SPELL “ARMINIAN?”
A: (Laughs) Well, the short answer is “poorly!” Any student of mine knows that I despise Microsoft Word, with its automatic respellings. It may have been a “Word” issue, but I am not above misspelling the word myself! If I did misspell the word, I take full responsibility. I appreciate all attempts to correct my poor spelling, as long as those who do, do not mind my correcting their poor theology!

Next Caner addresses his usage of “Armenian” rather than “Arminian” in recent posts. Rather than accepting the fact that he neither understands the term, knows the historical position of said position, let alone knows how it is spelled and allowing himself to be corrected, he blames Microsoft. Yes, MICROSOFT. [ht: bluewoad, MS Word does not have Armenian as an autocorrect for Arminian. Thus, Caner has lied again.] You’d think the president of a seminary would take the time to proof read material before publishing it for public consumption… you’d think. But the fact of the matter is that, as shown so clearly in his sermons and posts, Caner doesn’t know what an Arminian is (and he is one), much less an Armenian!

As to “correcting their poor theology”, how has he ever done this except by misrepresentation and dishonesty? Caner cannot even get the facts right in this blog post, much less in a sermon. If you want to “correct” someone’s theology, Mr. Caner, be man enough to debate someone fairly rather than barking from your bully pulpit.

Next Caner identifies his wrongly citing John Gill (heh, now if you want to really talk about hyper-Calvinism…). Caner then again repaints history with his broad “Anabaptist” brush:

“Gill was a Baptist, and pastored the same church as Spurgeon. I should have cited the legion of others who in fact did persecute us - Cotton Mather rejoiced at the firing of Henry Dunster from Harvard when he denied infant baptism”

This doesn’t really address the depth of the error. Caner didn’t even know these facts about Baptist history until after someone pointed it out to him! And as to Henry Dunster’s firing from Harvard, one has to remember that Harvard used to be a conservative Presbyterian school. Would Caner fire someone from Liberty for accepting Open Theism (assuming he knew what the term meant!)? These red herrings have nothing to do with the real issue, which is that Baptists do have history as Calvinistic.

The arrogance of their posts, however, had to be answered. A casual reading of their writings would force one to think that the entire Christian world is Calvinist! Yet such luminaries as Billy Sunday, Jerry Vines, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas, Charles Stanley, the entire Charismatic movement, Methodists, and general atonement Baptists are overlooked. Anyone who studies Church History would know that the Reformed movement is an important one, but a small portion of Christianity on the whole.

Does Caner really think that these men and movements, some good, some terrible are more central to Baptist history than the Protestant Reformation? Is Caner truly this ignorant? Is the Charismatic movement really more important to Christianity than the Protestant Reformation? My goodness, Martin Luther is rolling over in his grave. If it weren’t for the Protestant Reformation Caner would still be worshiping Mohammed.

Caner then redefines his own positions:

Q: DIDN’T YOU SAY THAT CALVINISTS ARE WORSE THAN MUSLIMS?
A: Yes, absolutely. For a small portion of these people, just daring to question the Bezian movement is heresy.

The context of that quote was in regards to Calvinist beliefs, not their declaration of what is and isn’t heresy. Here Caner is simply lying. If anyone bothers listening to Caner’s sermon wherein this claim was made, he was accusing Calvinists of heretical error.

“There are plenty of schools to which the neo-Calvinists can go, but Liberty will be a lighthouse for missions and evangelism to the “whosoever wills.” Period.”

You Calvinists at Liberty take note, Ergun Caner has declared you persona-non-grata at Liberty. The truth that the Reformers fought and died for, that our Baptist forefathers endured hardship over and that today’s apologists are lambasted for has been declared off-limits for you at Liberty. It seems that Caner’s “whosoever wills to be ignorant” is what plays in today’s seminaries… it is a short step from this kind of revisionism, dishonesty and luke-warm attitude toward the truth of Scripture that has most seminaries and churches turning to liberalism, post-modernism and forsaking Christ.

Regardless of whether you’re a Calvinist or not, the kind of dishonesty that the Caners, O’Donnell and Liberty Seminary have shown during this entire debacle must be exposed and opposed. Men like this have no right to the claim of seminary president, much less pastors or teachers in the church of our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ.

Ergun Caner, Emir Caner & Brett O'Donnel are Liars

After months of preparation, the debate over the issue of "Baptists and Calvinism" has been cancelled. After agreeing to a format, Brett O'Donnell and the Caner brothers changed the rules. Yet, at Ergun Caner's blog one finds:

Calvinist Debate Cancelled by Hyper-calvinist
James White backs out of the debate. Refused to submit to moderator rules. Details will follow tonight.

Simply put, these men are liars. Not only does Ergun continue to mislabel Dr. White as a hyper-Calvinist (as if Ergun Caner has ever met one in his life), he misrepresents the actual events. One can read the entire exchange at Alpha & Omega Ministries website.

UPDATE
Ergun Caner has posted a brazen account of their deception at the Liberty Seminary website. Notice that he omits the fact that they (O'Donnell specifically) unilaterally chose to change the agreed upon format! Lying by omission is still lying.

Why is it so easy for folks in evangelical circles to lie and deny it? It seems rampant.

Response to John Stebbe - Infant Salvation

(Reposted from Calvinist Gadfly...)

# John Stebbe Says:

Micah, I had said that I would respond on your other site (radongas). But I was about to post and saw that I have to set up an account for myself to post, and I just don’t want to do that. So I’ll respond here to comments you made on the other site, if that’s agreeable to you.

“I will go to him” (2 Sam 12:23) I agree with you that this verse does not teach universal salvation of those dying in infancy. I believe that we may possibly infer from this verse that there is an afterlife, but it would be difficult to go farther, based on this verse alone.

You wrote:
Mar 10:14 and Luke 18:16, wherein Christ says “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Christ’s point is not that all who die in infancy obtain “instant heaven” rather, that citizenship in the kingdom of God is based on child-like faith.

John here: I agree again.

Mohler cited Deut 1:39:
“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad–they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.”

I think that this passage does teach that these little ones are in a state of innocence. Not that they do not possess a sin nature, but that they have not committed any actual sins. The question of whether a person is punished in hell because of their sinful nature, or their sins actually committed, or neither, or both, is not addressed by this passage, in my view.

You wrote:
Mohler goes on, “The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin.”

John here:
I think Mohler has a point here. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Christ condemns many people to eternal punishment because of their sins of omission (“You did not visit me in prison,” . . . etc.). In the parable, no one is condemned because of his sin nature inherited from Adam. Their condemnation is for events in their lives which they would have been aware of (in this case, sins of omission).

And MacArthur notes:
“Scripture teaches that all condemned sinners earned their eternal punishment by their sins.
“How do I know that? Because whenever you go to the judgment seat, this is what you see: Revelation 20, verses 11 and 12. Here’s the great, white throne, this is the final judgment of all the ungodly of all history, and the One sitting upon the throne from whose presence earth and heaven flood away and no place was found (for them, obviously), the great judge, God, has committed that judgment to Christ, it tells us in John 5. There is Christ, the great judge, on the throne, and verse 12, “I saw the dead, the great, the small standing before the throne and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged”–listen to this–“from the things which were written in the books according to their deeds; and the sea gave up the dead which were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them and they were judged every one of them according to their”–what? “Deeds” or “works.”

And another point from MacArthur:
“Revelation, chapter 5, says, verses 9 and 10, that ‘In heaven there were people praising Christ from every tongue and tribe and people and nation.’ You know that passage? Revelation 5:9 and 10? Do you know there are tribes and nations that have never heard the gospel, but there will still be representatives from those tribes and nations in heaven praising Christ because they died in their infancy or childhood or without the ability to understand?”

You wrote:
Mohler seems to limit the extent of original sin so as to have it affect the will, but not actually transfer guilt. But this is not what the Bible presents. Romans 5 and elsewhere clearly express that “in Adam all die”, we who call ourselves Reformed acknowledge that this is spiritual death, but apart from being made “alive in Christ” there is no solution to spiritual death and its result is condemnation unto damnation. Unless one is graciously transferred from the headship of Adam into the headship of Christ, they will die… not just die physically, but they will face the second death. This is what the doctrine of imputation is about, Adam’s sin imputed to me (as well as my own sins being put in my acct) because Adam was my federal head. Likewise Christ’s obedience and death is credited to me, apart from my own actions, and His resurrection secures my justification resulting in salvation. If Adam’s sin doesn’t make me guilty, on what basis can I be declared righteous in the sight of God on the basis of Christ’s obedience in my stead? Imputation must work both ways, or its not imputation… if we want to seriously believe in the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, we must also believe in the sinfulness of Adam imputed to the unbeliever.

John here:
Sure, in Adam all die. All are born spiritually dead. All are born unable to respond to the Gospel. I have heard of “double-predestination,” but I have not yet heard of “double-imputation.” I have heard of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, of course, but I have not as of yet heard of Adam’s sin being “imputed” to us. Reformed writers may have referred to this, but it has thus far escaped my notice.

You and I are born with a sinful nature, to be sure, but in all instances where Scripture speaks of people who are to be punished in hell, the rationale for the punishment is the person’s deeds, not his inherited predisposition.

You asked me to interact with the points you made on the Radongas site, and I have been happy to do so (though not exhaustively, I will admit). Now, Micah, I will ask you to interact with a point I raised here on the Gadfly site. You say that we don’t know with certainty that all those dying in infancy are among the elect. Imagine, then, that you are an aborted child who finds himself suffering in Hell. You may ask yourself, “Why am I here in this place of punishment?” What answer would there be? Everyone possesses a sin nature, that’s true, but these aborted children have not committed any actual sin, nor had they any opportunity for such sinning.

Thanks, Micah, for your willingness to work through this issue with me.

Blessings to you,

John Stebbe


Micah Says:

Deut 1:39 does not teach that all little ones are in a state of ‘innocence”. Remember that the reason God is sparing the young of Israel (notice, this applies to Israel only, not to the Amalekites, not the Egyptians etc) is that they’re not guilty of the *particular sin*, this says nothing about their salvation either, merely their mortal lives. This verse can teach us that God is gracious and gives us much leeway, but in no way can it teach universal-paedo-salvation.

Parable of Sheep and goats - remember Christ tells the Pharisees that they do not believe *because you are not my sheep*, not the other way around. The reason sheep are sheep is because they are chosen into His flock, the reason goats are goats is because they are not of His flock, Christ does describe what goats do, but it is because of their sinful nature and slavery to sin that they respond in that manner. We all inherit their goat-ness from Adam but we get to be sheep because God chooses us.

MacArthur is a five point Calvinist, thus he recognizes that justification is by the imputed righetousness of Christ… it therefore is reasonable to accept that he also believes in Adam’s sin imputed. He writes,

“All humans are born in sin. If infants were not sinful, if they were not morally corrupt, then they wouldn’t die. If they were born innocent or pure or morally neutral, there would be no basis for their death! The very fact that they die indicates that the disease of sin is there in them, because sin is the killer. It is in their inherited sin nature that the seeds of death are planted.” (”THE SALVATION OF BABIES WHO DIE”)

So while MacArthur recognizes original sin, he doesn’t consistently apply this to his understanding of salvation and infants. Regardless, he and Mohler differ on reasoning. MacArthur later states:

“…all children who die before they reach the condition of accountability, by which they convincingly understand their sin and corruption and embrace the gospel by faith, are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ, being elect by sovereign choice.”

It is my position in my blog post that MacArthur’s reasoning for this is flawed.

(Just a note here, MacArthur's flaw is this: "...all children who die before they reach the condition of accountability... are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ, being elect by sovereign choice." No where in Scripture does it suggest that the infants of the Amalekites or other lost groups were saved. I wonder if the Jews would have comforted their enemies with such a claim.)

MacArthur does not, as you indicate, believe that babies are saved because they didn’t commit sin or are innocent but rather because he cannot understand how they’re morally culpable having not heard or understood.

God rightly condemns men who do not hear the Gospel every day… so to say that He cannot justly condemn babies on the same basis is groundless. Since no one can understand the Gospel apart from the supernatural work of God in regeneration, could this not be said of adults?

MacArthur’s attempts to use Rev 5:9-10, while having nothing to do with the infant’s supposed innocence, are flawed because those verses do not even speak to the subject of infants. Sadly I find here again that he also without foundation.

You write:

“Sure, in Adam all die. All are born spiritually dead. All are born unable to respond to the Gospel. I have heard of “double-predestination,” but I have not yet heard of “double-imputation.””

Quoting MacArthur again:

“Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb and those who speak lies go astray from birth.” Psalm 143:2, “In thy sight, no one living is righteous;” no one living! That is from conception on: in the womb, at birth, in infancy, in childhood, or adulthood–no one is righteous!”

Hopefully by now you can see MacArthur’s inconsistency. ;)

I was involved in an online debate, the entirety of which I have reposted at my blog regarding Total Depravity. In that debate the issue of “dobule imputation” comes up. You might read through it, though my final reply in the series perhaps explains this best.

Consider for a moment that you state: “Sure, in Adam all die. All are born spiritually dead.”

This indicates to me that at least you have some concept of federal headship, whereby Adam represented all mankind in Eden. In creating Adam and placing him in the garden, God selected a first representative for us. In falling Adam cast the whole human race into sin. Thus, all humans die, it is a result of Adam’s sin. As it is written, “…death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam…” Why is this the case? Because “…through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men…” and also “through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.”

As MacArthur notes, if Adam’s sin was not imputed to us, there would be no reason for infants to die at all.

Also, I firmly believe that infants and the infirm need a Savior. Far from innocent, everyone is “estranged from the womb” from God and requires the atoning death of Christ in order to reconcile them.

Thus, without the imputation of the sin of Adam, no one who does not physically commit a sin needs saving. Piper’s group writes: “…the consequences of Adam’s sin are twofold (original sin and imputed sin), the remedy of our salvation is also twofold…”

Like a person who becomes a citizen of a country at war with another, we are born at war with God. Our representative, Adam, was justly chosen by God to act on our behalf in the Garden. In Adam’s falling, his whole posterity fell and in Adam’s sin we all sinned.

This is how Christ is the “second Adam”. By God’s grace alone men, women and even children are placed into Christ and thus escape the final curse of the fall. Christ then is our second representative who was victorious where Adam failed. A.w. Pink notes: “…death furnished proof that sin was ‘imputed’—because men were guilty of Adam’s offence.”

You write:
“You and I are born with a sinful nature, to be sure, but in all instances where Scripture speaks of people who are to be punished in hell, the rationale for the punishment is the person’s deeds, not his inherited predisposition.”

Consider Romans 9,

” for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER. Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”"

Esau was condemned prior to his birth, not because God ‘foresaw’ that Esau would be the troublemaker, Jacob in fact turns out to be a rebellious liar who fights with God, but because God chose Jacob over Esau. Esau was justly condmened even before he was born, and yet God justly chose Jacob likewise before he was born, not on the basis of deeds they did or would do. Our sinful deeds therefore are results of our kinship to Adam and futher evidence of our guilt before God.

Finally you write:

“Imagine, then, that you are an aborted child who finds himself suffering in Hell. You may ask yourself, “Why am I here in this place of punishment?” What answer would there be? Everyone possesses a sin nature, that’s true, but these aborted children have not committed any actual sin, nor had they any opportunity for such sinning.”

These kinds of exercises, while emotionally gripping, are merely the philosophizing of men apart from Scriptural basis. Everyone who is sent to hell is sent there justly because Adam represented them in the fall and everyone who is sent to heaven is there justly because Christ represented them in His life, death, burial and resurrection. The evidence that one is in Adam is expressed throughout Paul’s letters, “the deeds of the flesh are evident” he writes. The evil we do is a result of our being “in the flesh”, that is, “in Adam.” Paul contrasts this with “the deeds of the Spirit…” which is evidence of our being “in Christ”.

If anyone is sent to hell, apart from commiting acutal sin on this temporal plane of existance, knows that they were justly represented by Adam in Eden, whom God chose to so represent them. Surely no one can talk back to God.

In Christ,
Micah

- also note, I don’t believe every infant is condemned… I just don’t believe it is proper to extend to unbelievers the hope that their children get “instant heaven” on the basis of Bible verses that say nothing of the sort.

Total Depravity - 2004 Debate

Because of the loss of the forums at Reaching For Christ (where I used to do 99% of my posting), due to lack of time and funds of everyone involved, a lengthy debate between myself, Mark Ennis and two Church of Christ elders was lost except for at the Church of Christ website. I'm going to post the debate here, in entirety for others to read/use.

I hope this is edifying for everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------


Resolved: The scriptures teach total (hereditary) depravity

Affirming: Mark Ennis (aka MarkE) and Micah Burke

Denying: Kieran Murphy (aka Papasmurph) and Steve Kearney.

On the due date each paper will be submitted ...

Round 1 - Opening statements by Micah and Kieran - 2000 word limit due April 2, 2004

Round 2 - Rebuttal Statements by Mark and Steve - 1500 word limit due April 16, 2004

Round 3 (Short Questions and Short Answers) - Mark / Micah's 5 Questions for Kieran & Steve due April 23, 2004.

Kieran and Steve’s answers due April 28, 2004

Round 4 (Short Questions and Short Answers) - Kieran / Steve’s 5 Questions for Mark & Micah due May 3, 2004.

Mark and Micah’s answers due May 7, 2004

Round 5 - Rebuttal Statements by Mark and Steve - 1000 word limit due May. 14, 2004

Round 6 - Closing Statements by Micah and Kieran - 2000 word limit due May 21, 2004

Total Depravity - Micah's First Post

Total Depravity

The doctrine of Total Depravity is the Biblical expression of the effects of sin on human nature. One’s view of salvation is primarily defined by his view of sin and the effects of the fall on mankind.

Total Depravity does not mean that every person will be as bad as they can be, but that the effects of the fall affect them physically, and spiritually. This does not mean that men do not do things that appear civilly good, but that according to God’s perfect standard they all fall short. Therefore, man is rebellious toward God and cannot nor will not do anything to affect his own salvation. Men have a will free to choose what to eat, where to go, and what to wear, but not the ability to salvifically choose righteousness or to ‘cooperate’ in some manner.

The Bible is filled with commands of God to sinful men and though God commands something, it does not mean that God also grants the ability to do it. God commanded the Israelites to abide by all of His Law, yet Scripture informs us that they were unable.

The Fall

Gen 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

This agreement God made with Adam whereby he could remain in the garden and live so long as he did not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God promised death for disobedience of His command.

Gen 3:19 - By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.

Adam broke this agreement, partaking of the fruit of the tree and so suffered the penalty of the agreement, death. Not only did this curse come to Adam, but to his offspring as well.

Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years; he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Because Seth was born in the likeness of Adam, he so partook of the curse of Adam. Although Seth and other offspring were still in the image of God, they were fallen, no longer “good.”[1] This agreement was, therefore, not just with Adam. As expressed in Romans 5, Adam’s actions affected his offspring as well.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Romans teaches that “death reigned”, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam. A person did not therefore need to engage in sinfulness to endure the same judgment declared upon Adam.

Rom 5:15-17 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Romans 5 explains that “if by the transgression of the one the many died”, that is, by Adam’s one sin many died. There can be no ambiguity in this; it is by the one transgression of Adam that many died and resulted in condemnation on many.

When Romans 5:17 states “death reigned through the one,” it explains in verse 14 that Adam, being a type of Christ to come, was a representative of his people, all of mankind, just as Christ is a representative of His people, the church. Therefore, all who are in Adam partake in the same condemnation he received.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

While Adam did not immediately physically die, God’s punishment was not withheld. Adam died spiritually and was consequently separated from communion with God. His hostility toward God was immediately evident in his actions.

Regardless of one’s opinion of how this curse is transmitted, it is evident from the Scripture that all of us do endure condemnation not just for our own sins, but also of Adam. Adam’s sin is imputed to us. Thus, “by the transgression of the one the many died.” Much like an infant born in a country at war with another, no one could claim that the infant was not also at war. The infant is born, as a citizen of said country at war with the other. Scripture likewise describes men as enemies of God.[2]

Dead in sin

The complete nature of this spiritual death is established throughout the entire Bible. From the writings of the Psalmist, to the writings of Paul we find clear indication that spiritual death is upon every man. Far from a mere sickness as some suggest, spiritual deadness is likened to enslavement. Christ Himself said:

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

One might argue that this indicates that the actual commission of sin is required for one to be enslaved to sin, but the Psalmist speaks otherwise,

Psalms 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

This condition is universal, as Paul writes in Romans 3:9-10 “…for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; “THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD””. It is therefore evident that we are all wicked, from birth, as all have turned aside and not one of us does good while we are yet enslaved to sin. As it is written, “All have sinned…”3[3]

This is no more clearly illustrated than in Ephesians 2:1-4 and its sister passages in Colossians.

Eph 2:1-3 - And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

This spiritual deadness is so complete that all of us walk according to the ways of the world and Satan. All of us live in lust and indulge the desires of our flesh and are “by nature children of wrath.” Paul explains in Ephesians 1:4-5 that through Christ we are ‘made alive’ just as 1 Corinthians 15:22 states that “in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive”. Thus, the case for Adam’s headship over mankind is made evident and the only possibility for redemption from the curse of Adam is in the headship Christ.

Col 1:21 - And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds

Paul, in Colossians, explains that prior to God’s grace, we were alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds. The evil deeds are a result of the hostility and not a cause of this condition. Later Paul writes,

Col 2:13 - When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions

Paralleling Ephesians 1, Paul declares men to be ‘dead in… transgressions’. Paul explains further...

Unable to please God

Noting this concept of the ‘uncircumcision of your flesh’ we find clarification for this condition in the book of Romans, wherein Paul more clearly details the symptoms of being ‘dead in sin’.

Rom 8:5 - For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Paul describes two types of people, those whose minds are “set on the things of the flesh” and those whose minds are set on “the things of the Spirit.” Paul later (in verse 9) explains their differences. First, Paul explains the symptoms of one whose mind is set on the flesh.

Rom 8:6-8 - For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Here is death, as God promised, “You will surely die.” The person whose mind is set on the flesh is dead in their sins, he is hostile toward God (just as Col 1:21 expresses), he does not subject himself to the law of God and he is not able to do so. This person cannot please God. This is the spiritual death spoken of in the aforementioned verses clearly defined.

Both Jesus and Paul explain elsewhere that such a person cannot even understand the things of the Spirit of God as to accept them4[4]. The only way the Apostles knew and listened to the Spirit is because the Spirit abided with and was to be in them.

1Cor 2:14 - But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

For one to be saved they must be able to hear and understand the message of the Gospel[5], this is impossible for ‘natural man’. What does Paul tell us is the difference between those minds are “set on the things of the flesh” and those whose minds are set on “the things of the Spirit”?

Rom 8:9 - However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

For one not to be in the flesh, the Spirit of God must dwell in them. Without the Spirit of God dwelling in them, they are not in Christ and remain in Adam. Therefore, the following is true of the person who does not have the Spirit of God in them:

They are hostile toward God

Do not subject themselves to the law of God

Cannot subject themselves to the law of God

Cannot please God

The person, in whom the Spirit does dwell, however, has his mind “set on the things of the Spirit”. He is able to understand Spiritual things, can subject himself to God’s Law, and can please God by faith in His Son. Thus it is written in the first verse in Romans 8, “There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.”

Conclusion

The doctrine of Total Depravity is a proper explanation of the Biblical doctrine of man’s sinful nature and inability to affect his own salvation. Again, this does not mean that men cannot act in accordance with civil law when it pleases them or choose what food to eat. It does mean that men cannot please God as to be saved apart from the Spirit of God dwelling in them. Many historical heresies began with an incomplete understanding or outright denial of this truth.

-------------

[1] Gen 1:31, Rom 3:12

[2] Rom 5:10

[3] Rom 3:23

[4] John 14:17

[5] Mat 13:23

Total Depravity - Kieran's First Post

Proposition: Do the scriptures teach total hereditary depravity?

What Is the Issue?

We do not deny that all people sin (Romans 3:23), that the consequences of our sins may affect our children (Exodus 34:6-7), that Adam’s sin brought physical death on all mankind (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12-21), or that some have such hardened hearts they are incapable of coming to Christ (Matthew 13:13-15).

We do, however, deny the scriptures teach the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. In the words of the Larger Catechism:

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

According to this theory each person inherits from Adam a nature that is not simply opposed to some good, but to “all good;” not simply inclined to some evil, but “all evil;” not simply inclined, but “wholly inclined” to all evil; not simply inclined to evil sometimes, but “wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually.”

This Doctrine is Unscriptural Because …

A. It has infants possessing a nature that is as evil as the devil’s.

If the true disposition of the human spirit at conception is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually,” how can the devil be any worse? Can he be more than “utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually”?

B. It does not allow men to grow any worse in the scale of moral turpitude.

The scriptures teach that men go “astray from birth” (Psalm 58:3), that they “all turned aside” (Psalms 14:3) and that “evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse.” (2 Timothy 3:13) But how can one who is born totally depraved – “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body … utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” (Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) Ch. IV Chap 6, Art. 2-3), “proceed from bad to worse” or “turn aside”? In fact, if men are born with a nature as bad as the devil which way do they go when they go astray: Toward the devil or toward God?

The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms became doctrinal standards for Presbyterian and other Reformed churches around the world. They teach man can’t get any worse than they are at birth. If you doubt me then tell me what word can be added to wholly which would increase or intensify it’s meaning? One cannot be more than “utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually.” One cannot be more than “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.” Such a person cannot proceed “from bad to worse” as the Scriptures teach. Thus, the Confession is wrong and ought to be repudiated by those who love the truth!

When the promoters of total depravity are confronted with this, they attempt to wiggle out of the problem by making a play on the word total. They claim that a man may be totally depraved and still become more crooked. According to James White: “When we speak of total depravity, we are not in any way asserting that man is as evil as he could possibly be … Total depravity speaks to the condition and nature of man. Basically, this doctrine teaches that all aspects of mankind’s character has been touched by sin – no part of man’s nature has escaped the pollution of sin. Man’s mind, man’s heart, his emotions, our will … every part has been altered, changed or damaged by sin. The effect of sin’s curse is total.” (The Sovereign Grace of God, 47-48). So total does not refer to the degree of depravity, but to “all the aspects of man character;” man has some depravity scattered all through him, but he can get worse – he is not “as evil as he could possibly be.” This might do well as an explanation were it not for some explanatory terms used in the London Confession of Faith, such as “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” (Chap VI, Art. 4) Certainly a sinner may go on sinning, but can he grow any worse than he is here pictured?

C. It is based upon the false doctrine that the sins of the father can be passed on to his sons.

God gave a command that Adam and his wife not eat “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:17) But they did eat and their rebellious act fits well the biblical definition of sin: "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4; "transgression of the law", KJV). The scriptures never define sin as anything but a transgression of the law. It is never viewed as a weakness or a hereditament and the Spirit never calls temptation a sin. If it were, Jesus would be a sinner, for he “has been tempted in all things as we are” (Hebrew 4:15).

When Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God the guilt was imputed to them – they died spiritually! Those who believe that more than this happened – that the guilt of this transgression was also imputed to their children, “and the same death in sin … conveyed to all their posterity” (WCF, chap VI, Art. 3) are obliged to prove it. We are confident they will fail. For the scriptures teach: “The person who sins (does lawlessness, KM) will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity … the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20) Though men often suffer as a consequence of their father’s sins (cf. Exodus 34:6-7), no man has or will ever be punished because of his father’s sin. Each man spiritually dies for his own sins alone (cf. Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13), Calvinism notwithstanding.

D. It paints a picture of children that is contrary to the word of God.

Calvinists tell us that man is conceived and then “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” (Your nature cannot become worse than this!) But how does this doctrine square with what the Lord and his apostles teach about children?

Jesus taught that unless you “are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:1-4) If the nature of a child is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” what, pray, is in the child’s nature worthy of emulation? It is clear that the Lord was not a Calvinist. Paul wasn’t either. In his letter to the Corinthians he taught them not to be like children in their thinking (immature) but in regard to evil “be like babes.” (1 Corinthians 14:20) This is interesting. I wonder what it means if it does not mean that in regard to evil, babes are innocent?

E. It teaches that since the fall of Adam all men are born dead in sin.

In contrast, Paul wrote: “And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.” (Romans 7:9-11) This verse is nonsensical if Calvinism is true. Men are not born dead in sin, but alive, children are not born guilty of sin, but in a state of innocence. It is after they are born that they are killed through the commandment.

F. It teaches that men are so depraved at birth they are unable to choose right.

In as much as man was formed of dust from the ground (Genesis 2:7), to that extent he has been placed within the natural order. But man is more than flesh and blood, more than a beast of the field. He is created in the “image (tselem) and likeness (demuth)” of his Creator. (Gen 1:26) Though both terms are often used with reference to external similarities, it was man's spirit, not his body, that was made in God’s image. For God is spirit (John 4:24) and has no body. (Luke 24:39)

Man has many attributes distinguishing him from the rest of creation; demonstrating that he is in the image of God. Among these attributes is his freedom of choice. God told Adam: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17) Man possessed the freedom of will to obey and live or to disobey and die.

Calvinism says that in Adam this freedom to choose God was lost. But we ask: Are not men still made in God’s image? (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9-10) Calvinists say: “Yes, but it has been corrupted through Adam’s sin.” But how can that be? For Adam is only the father of our flesh. While we inherit our flesh from him, our spirits come immediately to us from God. He “is the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9); He “forms the spirit of man within him” (Zechariah 12:1) and at death the spirit of each of us returns to Him who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). If it is true, as Calvinists teach, that each is born with a totally depraved spirit, then they came that way directly from God.

The assumption underlying every command from God (beginning with Gen 2:16-17), every appeal to righteous living and every promise of judgment is that man is free in his will and able to respond to God. The prophet Ezekiel appealed to the sinner to "turn from his ways and live" (Ezek. 18:23). Moses set before Israel the alternatives of life and death, and called on them to "choose life in order that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:15f). Jesus invited “all who are weary and heavy-laden” (Matt 11:28f) to come to him for rest. Each of these invitations pre-supposes that men are free in their will to either obey or disobey.

Final Thoughts

Even today man enters the world in the image of God. He does not come from God totally depraved, but without evil and remains this way until sin defaces him. Left to ourselves, we are without hope! This is why both Jews and Greeks are in such desperate need for the gospel; and this is why Paul was so anxious to publish it throughout the world: “… for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes….” (Romans 1:16; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-21) And here is one final reason why we object to the doctrine of total depravity: It limits the power of God. It has the sinner so depraved and so dead that God could not make a gospel sufficient to offset the work of Satan. Calvinism notwithstanding, the gospel – the word of God – is sufficiently powerful to save all who have “a good and honest heart.” (Luke 8:15; cf. 1 Peter 1:22-23; James 1:18)

Total Depravity - Mark's Rebuttal of Kieran's Post

1. How Bad Are Children...and the rest of us?

Papasmurph objects to the doctrine of total depravity because he says it paints a picture of infants that is contrary to God’s Word. He accuses us of holding that infants possess a nature identical to that of Satan himself.

In response, I would first say so what if that is the case? Papasmurph doesn’t offer any Scripture stating that infants have a good nature, an innocent nature, or even a bad nature that is just less evil than the Devil’s. This is nothing more than an anecdotal appeal to the emotions. Who wants to look at a cooing baby and say anything bad about it? I certainly don’t. But I am not the one who judges hearts, and if God’s word makes a statement about the nature of a child who am I to argue?

Secondly, Scripture makes no differentiation between the nature of children, and the nature of anyone else. What Scripture says of man includes all men descending from Adam by ordinary generation. It is at this point that Papsmurph’s presentation is weakest. He greatly minimizes the fallen nature of man. Papasmurph doesn’t feel the weight of simple Biblical statements like “inclination of [man’s] heart is evil from childhood” (Genesis 8:21). It is no insult to God or to a child for the inspired Word to claim “The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth” (Psalm 58:3). Jesus has very strong words for those who did not listen to His words:

Quote:
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:43,44)

Jesus says here that men are totally unable to respond to Him (you cannot hear My word) because they are “of their Father the devil”. This is not a very flattering picture of man, but it does run contrary to the underlying assumption of Papasmurph’s objection which seems to be that we are insulting man for pointing out his evil nature as a result of the fall. Jesus said “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children…” Luke 11:13). It is no insult to man to point out that he is evil. Was Paul wrong to point out that we used to walk “according to the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:1-3)? Or that we were “by nature children of wrath”? Total depravity is not wrong for pointing out “the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives” (Ecclesiastes 9:3). It may be the case that men do not have a nature as evil as the Devil’s (something we never claimed), but neither does man have a nature as good as the objection assumes.

2. Imputation of Sin

I would like to remind the reader that both I and Micah begged our opponent’s to keep the debate on topic, and original sin is not it. Though it may be impossible to debate total depravity without debating original sin, the two are not synonymous. The heart of this debate is whether or not man can respond to the gospel on his own in a fallen state, not how man ended up in that state.

Nevertheless, I do think Papasmurph’s assertions need a response. Ultimately, if Papasmurph is right, there is no atonement and no hope of peace with God through justification, and therefore no gospel. Papasmurph denies unequivocally that man’s guilt can not possibly be imputed to anyone else: “Each person dies for his own sins alone…”. I hope it is painfully obvious to the reader that this type of theology is utterly destructive of the atonement of Jesus Christ for His people. Papasmurph, Jesus died for the sins of other people. These sins were imputed to Him (there is no other way for the sins of His people to “get to Him” than imputation). If your theology is correct, there is no possibility of a substitutionary atonement. Machen said it well:

Quote:
“Well I should just like to point out to you that if it is impossible in the nature of things for one person to bear the guilt of another person’s sins, then we have none of us the slightest hope of being saved and the gospel is all a delusion and a snare. At the heart of the gospel is the teaching of the Bible to the effect that Jesus Christ, quite without sin Himself, bore the guilt of our sins upon the Cross. If that be true, then we cannot pronounce it impossible that one person should bear the guilt of another person’s sins.” (The Christian View of Man, 215).

The flip side is also true. If guilt can not be imputed, neither can righteousness, and Papasmurph destroys the doctrine of justification. For in the justification, rather than sin, the spotless righteousness of Jesus imputed to us. How can guilt not be imputed, but righteousness can? Ultimately Papasmurph’s leaves every man with no hope whatsoever.

These considerations being true, Papasmurph ignores the key Biblical passage on this doctrine: Romans 5:12-21. In verse 12 Paul says sin came into the world “through one man, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men”. If sin causes death, and death spread to all men through the actions of Adam, it stands to reason then that sin also spread to all men through the actions of Adam as our representative. In verse 18 Paul says condemnation came to all men through the offense of one, and in verse 19 Paul says that the many were “made sinners” by the disobedience of one.

3. Do Commands Imply Ability?

Papasmurph says that total depravity is wrong because it teaches that man cannot choose to do right. I hope everyone can see that this is assuming the matter under debate. We’re debating whether or not the fall of man leaves him unable to respond, it makes no sense to reply that this doctrine is wrong because it leaves man unable! Neither does Papasmurph present a single text of Scripture proving that man has the ability to respond to divine commands. The mere presence of divine commands does not prove ability. Papasmurph cites Matthew 11:28 (“Come unto me…”, but he ignores the words just prior to that (“no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him). The best Papasmurph can do is admit that the concept of ability is “assumed” in every command of God. But why assume that when we have the abundant testimony of Scripture that fallen man “cannot please God” (Romans 8:78), “cannot come” to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:37-45), is unable to discern the things of the Spirit because they are foolishness to him (1 Corinthians 2:14)? Robert Reymond responds to this objection well:

Quote:
“God deals with man according to his obligation, not according to the measure of his ability. Before the Fall, man had both the obligation and the ability to obey God. As a result of the Fall, he retained the former but lost the latter. Man’s inability to obey, arising from the moral corruption of his nature, does not remove from him his obligation to love God with all his heart soul, mind and strength, and his neighbor as himself. His obligation to obey God remains intact. If God dealt with man today according to his ability to obey, he would have to reduce his moral demands to the vanishing point. Conversely, if we determined the measure of man’s ability from the sweeping obligations implicit in the divine commands, then we would need to predicate total ability for man, that is to say we would all have to adopt the Pelagian position, for the commands of God cover the entire horizon of moral obligation.” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg. 454-455).

If Papa is right, man has the ability to keep the Law in full detail (since it is commanded), the ability to be perfect as his heavenly father is perfect (since it is commanded), and to love God perfectly without sin (since it is commanded). I hope it is painfully clear then, that it is a grave error to assume ability is implied by the command.

There is still so much to get to, but not enough space to do it fully.

Total Depravity - Steve's Rebuttal of Micah's First Post

1. The Doctrine

Hereditary Total Depravity is not as you say, "the Biblical expression of the effects of sin on human nature." On the contrary, it is the effects that Adam's sin allegedly had on human nature.

You write, "HTD does not mean that every person is as bad as they can be." Well, the Reformed Creeds disagree with you.

So, man can choose what to eat, where to go, and what to wear, but he cannot choose righteousness? Good news? Never! The gospel according to Calvin is a bouquet of barbed wire.

In truth the effects of Adam's sin did not rob man of his free will in matters of salvation. The Holy Spirit continually offers man salvation choices (Dt 30:19; Jos 24:15). Jesus said, "You are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life" (Jn 5:40). Obviously, Jesus was not a Calvinist. The gospel says, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him may not perish, but have eternal life" (Jn 3:16). The "whoever" is anyone who wishes (Rev 22:17). This is the word of the Lord! God be praised!

2. The Fall

Yes, God had warned Adam and Eve (Gen 2:17). But they high-handedly disobey God, the result was both died spiritually that day, and sin entered into the world. God drove them away from the tree of life. Adam and Eve no longer had anything to sustain their physical bodies indefinitely. From that day the long slow process of deterioration eventually led to their demise. When Adam was barred from the tree of life, we (his posterity) also lost access to the tree of life (Gen 3:22-24). In this way aging and physical death passed to all his descendants. As the Scriptures say, "in Adam all die" (1Cor 15:22).

I did not personally eat the forbidden fruit. I am not guilty of Adam's sin although I suffer the consequence of his sin. Let me illustrate, in Dublin Ireland there was a child happily playing on the footpath of the street in front of her house. A car driven at speed by a drunken driver turned into the street, as he turned the corner the drunk driver lost control. The car mounted the pavement and pinned the child to her own garden wall. Her injuries were horrendous and as a result she died. Question: was the child guilty of drunkenness? Obviously not! But had she suffered the consequence of the man's drunkenness? Yes she had! It is only because Adam is the father of the race that "the many" (all) die as a consequence of Adam's sin. Paul's argument is we die whether we sin in the likeness of Adam's sin or not, that is, whether our sin had a death penalty attached to it or not.

Micah you say, "they (Seth/offspring) were fallen, no longer good," if they were no longer good, they were bad. It stands to reason, if they were bad (as per the doctrine of HTD), then they no longer had the image of God.

In Romans 5:12-21 Paul uses Adam, as a type of Christ. But Adam was not a saviour was he? No, he is only a type of Christ because he is the federal head of the human race (physically), while Christ is federal head of the human race (spiritually). In Micah's interpretation Jesus has a lesser headship. For Adam is head of the whole race but Jesus is only head of the elect. This restricted headship does not fit the scope of Romans 5.

When Adam sinned he brought sin and death into our world. This curse and the other curses in Genesis 3 were unconditional. They are in the world despite what we do or don't do. "Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men." The condemnation is "For you are dust and to dust you shall return" (Gen 3:19). In Adam every human is cursed to die physically.

"While through the obedience of the One many (all) will be made righteous." The same "many" who are condemned in Adam, will be made righteous in Christ – righteous to the degree that the curse of death has been removed from them. That means all men can be raised from the dead. Micah believes; Adam's condemnation (physical death) extends to all men, while Christ's justification is restricted to "His people, the church." That is not what Paul is teaching. He is saying that in Adam "the many" (all) die while in Christ "the many" (all) are provided a "justification of life" unconditionally. This "justification of life" counteracts Adam's sin; so all men can be raised from the dead (Rom 5:17-19). However, Christ's death covers "much more," than Adam's transgression, it also covers the "many transgressions" of all men. Of course, only those who want of "the abundance" will receive the "free gift of righteousness" provided in Christ's death (Rev 22:17).

Micah argues that death in Romans 5 is both physical and spiritual. Then as night follows day verses 18-19 teaches, "all men" die and "all men" receive "justification of life," that is universal salvation!

3. Dead in sin

Micah understands that the slave of sin is one who “commits sin” (Jn 8:34). Jesus was talking to His contemporaries, people who believed in Him, who were commanded to abide in His word. So this verse too teaches that actual commission of sin is required for one to be alienated from God.

We are spiritually dead in sin not because we are born that way, but because we choose to live in sin. Psalm 58:3 teaches people were old enough to speak lies. "They have gone astray" is not synonymous with born astray.

"There is none who does good" (Rom 3:9-10). The explanation is in the verse read on, "all have turned aside, together they have become useless." It does not say, all were conceived astray and born useless. So this passage does not prove HTD either.

"Walking" means living (Eph 2: 3, 4:1; 5:2). Formerly, under the influence of Satan, these Christians had lived in disobedience to God. They were dead in their sins because they had chosen to live that way. The word "nature" as it is used in this context is used, not of birth but of "long habit" (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 660). Yes, these Christians by living in sin and practicing sin were depraved. There is nothing about being born dead.

Micah, the word "sick" is used by Jesus to describe the spiritual condition of sinners (Lk 5:31-32; Isa 1:4 -6).

4. Unable to please God

"But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." The natural man is described in Romans 8:5, "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh." The natural man is a description of a mind-set. These people look to nature, and the wisdom of man for answers to life. The fleshly minded mistakenly believes there is nothing beyond what he sees, hears, tastes, smells and touches. King Herod, Pontius Pilate and in our own day the evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, and many humanists are typical of the natural man.

A person like this does not accept the things of the Spirit (the gospel), for they are foolishness to him. The things of the spirit world can only be appraised spiritually, that is by the revelation of God. Because the natural man refuses to be guided by revelation, he rejects God, Christ, redemption, heaven etc. These things are nonsense to him. Preaching Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness (1Cor 1:23). So, faith was impossible for them.

The people effected by the "natural man" syndrome range from the naive youth to the College Professor, from the immature Christian to the Atheist. However, God is putting constant pressure on the natural man to give credence to the spiritual world. God has set eternity in his heart (Eccl 3:11): The evidence for God is within him (Rom 1:19). The glorious creation witnesses constantly to the Creator (Rom 1:20; Ps 19:1). Even the futility of life plays it part by coercing the natural man to look for something better (Eccl 2:11). Combine these subtle pressures with circumstances that rock the natural man's world, and his unbelief can turn to faith. Remember the Ninevites! (Jonah 3:5, 10) Ordinarily, the natural man is unwilling to come to Jesus (Jn 5:40), but that mind-set can change, as the case of the Corinthians, and the Ephesians proves (Eph 1:13-14).

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom 1:16). Still, the gospel must find a willing heart (Jn 7:17).

Conclusion

The doctrine of Hereditary Total Depravity contradicts the Scriptures. A man cannot inherit his father's sin nor his guilt nor his punishment (Ezk 18:20).