Grace Alone Heresy

[WalkerW]

Why should it be defined as such?

Good question. Byron Sherwin defined repentance as a "divine grace (hesed)," which "requires both a human initiative and a divine response." (In Partnership with God: Contemporary Jewish Law and Ethics, Syracuse University Press: 1990)

Judah Goldin defined grace (hesed) as a "word expressing the phenomenon of "loyalty", "devotion."...Taken literally, the term gemilut hasadim [deeds of grace] is an action that represents a doing something in return, which doing is expressive of a loyalty- or less clumsily, gemilut hasadim is an act by means of which one demonstrates his response to someone, in obedience to him or out of loyalty to him. In short, it really is an act of piety. And strictly speaking, any action...which an individual carried out as a fulfillment of a divine command, was an act of gemilut hasadim." ("The Three Pillars of Simeon the Righteous," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 27, 1958)

"Not only did Abraham do acts of hesed, but he commanded his descendants and followers to do likewise. According to a statement of Rabbi Judah bar Nahamani (Babylonian Talmud 1948, 8b), gemilut hasadim is the distinguishing characteristic of the children of Israel, who hold to the covenant of Abraham. Rabbi Judah cites God's words regarding Abraham: "For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity, to keep the way of the Lord, by doing what is just and right." (Genesis 18:19) It would thus seem that the very purpose of the covenant of Abraham is gemilut hasadim, which is "the way of the Lord"; that is, the purpose of the covenant is moral imitatio Dei (Maimonides, Hilkhot De'ot 1:6-7)." (Warren Zev Harvey, "Grace in Judaism," Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions, Vol. 1, ed. Yudit Kornberg Greenberg, ABC-CLIO: 2008)

[JDave]

E.P. Sanders pointed out decades ago,

[Zakuska]

Grace isn't some magic thing that suddenly "saves" us and starts the conveyor belt of good works.

I might add that for grace to be defined as "unmerited favor" as some on this thread are wanting to define it... then being judged by our works cannot even enter into the picture. This definition of grace totally destroys the notion of judgment and being rewarded for our works. It turns God into a respector of persons and destroys justice. He arbitraily picks his team and who he is going to save from justice. Thus making him an unjust judge.

Thus he would cease to be God.

Psalsms 82

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Calvanism is also destroyed by the truth of being rewarded by our works.

[WalkerW]

I might add that for grace to be defined as "unmerited favor" as some on this thread are wanting to define it... then being judged by our works cannot even enter into the picture. This definition of grace totally destroys the notion of judgment and being rewarded for our works. It turns God into a respector of persons and destroys justice. He arbitraily picks his team and who he is going to save from justice. Thus making him an unjust judge.

Thus he would cease to be God.

Psalsms 82

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Calvanism is also destroyed by the truth of being rewarded by our works.

The closest definition I've heard to "unmerited favor" is the following:

"The Hebrew hesed (plural hasadim) is usually translated as "grace" or "loving-kindness," but sometimes also as "mercy" or "love." An act of hesed is an act of kindness done neither to repay a debt nor for the sake of gain, but freely and purely out of love." (Warren Zev Harvey, "Grace in Judaism," Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions, Vol. 1, ed. Yudit Kornberg Greenberg, ABC-CLIO: 2008)

Some might say that this contradicts what I have posted before regarding patronage. But while clients are expected to reciprocate grace (and necessarily so), this does not fully repay the patron. This is why Jennings says the client gives of himself, not from himself. "The proper response toward a patron is gratitude: offering honor, loyalty, testimony and service to the patron. Reciprocity is such a part of this relationship, that failure to return grace (gratitude) for grace (favor) results in a breach of the patron-client relationship. God's favor seeks a response of faithfulness (pistis) and service from God's clients...The recipients of God's favor are called to offer up their whole selves to God's service, to do what is righteous in God's sight (Rom. 6:1-14; 12:1). This response centers not only on honoring God but on love, generosity and loyal service toward fellow believers (Rom. 13:9-10; Gal. 5:13-14; 6:2)" (David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, InterVarsity Press: 2004)

In the context of kinship, the same concept applies: "As recipients of the gift of life, children had incurred a debt to their parents that they could never repay. So the virtuous person would honor the parents and "return the favors" bestowed by the parents throughout childhood and for the remainder of the parents' lives...Children were to honor their parents in word and deed, and especially to be loyal and serviceable to them in the parents' old age." (DeSilva, 2004)

"Indeed, nothing seems to drive New Testament ethics quite so much as kinship topics, from showing oneself a true child of God by embodying the characteristics of God and of Christ (the motif of "like parent, like child") to reinforcing the ethos of siblings among the sisters and brothers in the household of faith, and barring the way to unfamilial behaviors like competitiveness, divisiveness, vying for precedence and the like." (DeSilva, 2004)

[3DOP]

phrases like God's being immoral or salvation becoming arbitrary are troubling when they come from the LDS as often the LDS church hollers loudest when their faith is trimmed down to catchy mischaracterizations.....

Can I sum up that the LDS view of works and grace is "we keep the commandments and build our faith and God chips in some grace along the way as we need it"?

I think rory points to the crux.

If grace is to be defined as an undeserved gift of God how does that become compatible with works being rewarded by grace?

(but I do not deign to speak for my catholic friend...roars, apologies for misconstruing if I do)

The very most important thing that must be maintained is that however salvation happens, whatever comes first, it must be in a manner that precludes the remotest possibility that "any man should boast" (Eph. 2:9?). If I make it to heaven, because I die with a spark of charity in my soul, it will be by grace alone, and if that makes me sound like a Calvinist, that's fine. Nobody is wrong about everything. As a Catholic, I would emphasize that God will not violate our will, thus making for "cooperation", while Paul would probably deemphasize the will in favor of God's sovereignty. But to maklelan, we would both have a God guilty of being "arbitrary". I understand his objection. I understand why Calvin said grace is irresistible. I believe there is a way to excuse God of being arbitrary without developing a doctrine that makes it appear that a man can choose God of his own natural volition.

The original post is wrong. It suggests that if works are a necessary component of salvation, that "grace alone" is dead. This is only maintained by agreeing with the Evangelical fundamentalists and maybe the Calvinists that grace and faith are the same thing. That is one of the key problems that both Mormons and Protestants share. We all seem to agree that saving faith is by God's grace, but only the Catholics affirm that saving works are also so fully dependent upon God's grace, that "no man should boast" even if saving works are attributed to him. To God alone is the glory. "De profundis clamavi ad te Domine, Out of the depths, I have called upon thee O Lord." No. No. Not to me, be any credit. If I must err, it will be with an arbitrary God rather than I should have any credit. But I propose that I escape both!!!

Paul!!!! Very, very good to see you. Your family is getting older for sure. Maybe more of them? Are you still in the Islands? We will be in Hawaii nest week. Our youngest son, who is going to seminary in the Fall will be with us, along with our oldest daughter who is getting married after Easter. One of the middle kids (Marine Corps boy) got married this year and the other is always working and ready to fly the coop again at a drop of a hat. I have never been happier, and while it is sweet, there is a touch of melancholy too as the years roll by and our babies become big people. So fast. Ma & Pa 3DOP will be alone together again after so many years of blessed troubles and joys that are easier to appreciate in retrospect. I hope things are good for you and yours Paul. Let me know what is new with you...In private if you prefer...or in a post that defends your faith. Either would be great. God bless and keep you.

Rory

[paulhadik]

Zak:

I have never understood this claim that God is arbitrary because the clearness of the eternal picture is hidden from our temporal eyes. Was God arbitrary when He removed His authority so soon after the resurrection? Was He arbitrary in waiting 1800 years to return? Was He abitrary in choosing America? a small hamlet? a nobody named Joseph?

Or could it be the Righteous Workings of our Creator are to high for us to comprehend? Is He required to explain His every deed to us? Did He to Job?

Does Ephesians teach us that He first quickened us from death to life..by His grace...and later that the fruits of His spirit grow within us from His grace?

I have no objections with a word that Rory says that even after being redeemed I must give praise to God for the works that show my salvation to all the world.

hey roars, i came back looking for you..still on my little island in the pacific. My oldest heads to wisconsin for Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College). find me on facebook...i get lonely out here in paradise. I will be in honolulu the week of the 23rd...when do you leave?

[3DOP]

Zak:

I have never understood this claim that God is arbitrary because the clearness of the eternal picture is hidden from our temporal eyes. Was God arbitrary when He removed His authority so soon after the resurrection? Was He arbitrary in waiting 1800 years to return? Was He abitrary in choosing America? a small hamlet? a nobody named Joseph?

Or could it be the Righteous Workings of our Creator are to high for us to comprehend? Is He required to explain His every deed to us? Did He to Job?

Does Ephesians teach us that He first quickened us from death to life..by His grace...and later that the fruits of His spirit grow within us from His grace?

I have no objections with a word that Rory says that even after being redeemed I must give praise to God for the works that show my salvation to all the world.

hey roars, i came back looking for you..still on my little island in the pacific. My oldest heads to wisconsin for Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College). find me on facebook...i get lonely out here in paradise. I will be in honolulu the week of the 23rd...when do you leave?

Hey Paul,

I'll look you up. I guess I have to get my own account? Anyway, my wife and kids do it so I'll figure it out. And we'll be there next week in Honolulu.

Later,

Rory

[Zakuska]

Zak:

Does Ephesians teach us that He first quickened us from death to life..by His grace...and later that the fruits of His spirit grow within us from His grace?

I have no objections with a word that Rory says that even after being redeemed I must give praise to God for the works that show my salvation to all the world.

But now you are forgeting about the "wild bushes" who were bringing forth good fruit and that God grafted them in. Their works (fruits) preceeded their faith in God.

The only point Im trying to bring home is the formula is incomplete with out all three components. grace faith and works.

And I totally agree with Rory here...

he very most important thing that must be maintained is that however salvation happens, whatever comes first, it must be in a manner that precludes the remotest possibility that "any man should boast" (Eph. 2:9?).

The Apostle Paul brings these two ideas together in these verses.

Romans 11

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Notice some things here:

1) Paul is speaking against the boasting through out and warning that there is a possibility of falling from Gods grace.

2) (v14) Paul is trying to provoke the Israelites to "DO" (emulate) something to be saved.

3) (v17) In the parable of the gardener did the master plant the "wild trees"? No.

But he saw that the wild trees brought forth good fruit, broke off branches off the good tree that were bringing forth bad fruit (ie they were a good branch (filled with saved people) but they did not persevere and they turned wild. Thus they were broken off.

This also blows away Clavin's 'T'. (total depravity)

The Gardner did nothing with the "wild trees", those trees brought forth good fruits spontaniously, ALL on their own. He saw they were good (he saw their works) and he broke off the natural branches which had turned wild and grafted the wild branches with good fruit in.

4) (v22) Notice the conditions upon which their "salvation rests". IF they continue in goodness.

That also blows away Calvin's 'P' or OSAS. If God is able to break off branches at will and all because of something they "DID". (ie boasted) it shows even saved people can fall.

[3DOP]

But now you are forgeting about the "wild bushes" who were bringing forth good fruit and that God grafted them in. Their works (fruits) preceeded their faith in God.

The only point Im trying to bring home is the formula is incomplete with out all three components. grace faith and works.

And I totally agree with Rory here...

The Apostle Paul brings these two ideas together in these verses.

Romans 11

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Notice some things here:

1) Paul is speaking against the boasting through out and warning that there is a possibility of falling from Gods grace.

2) (v14) Paul is trying to provoke the Israelites to "DO" (emulate) something to be saved.

3) (v17) In the parable of the gardener did the master plant the "wild trees"? No.

But he saw that the wild trees brought forth good fruit, broke off branches off the good tree that were bringing forth bad fruit (ie they were a good branch (filled with saved people) but they did not persevere and they turned wild. Thus they were broken off.

This also blows away Clavin's 'T'. (total depravity)

The Gardner did nothing with the "wild trees", those trees brought forth good fruits spontaniously, ALL on their own. He saw they were good (he saw their works) and he broke off the natural branches which had turned wild and grafted the wild branches with good fruit in.

4) (v22) Notice the conditions upon which their "salvation rests". IF they continue in goodness.

That also blows away Calvin's 'P' or OSAS. If God is able to break off branches at will and all because of something they "DID". (ie boasted) it shows even saved people can fall.

Zakuska Hi.

I am of the opinion that nothing that Mormons, Calvinists, or Catholics believe can be "blown away" by uninterpreted Bible verses. All three camps are thoroughly familiar with every Bible verse and have considered how to incorporate all of them into our systematic beliefs. We all have seen our own teachings "blown off" by those who seem unable to completely understand the same Scriptures within the context that we do. I am not a Calvinist, but I can easily see how I would initiate a response if I was Calvinistic to your assertion above that this passage from Rom 12 is incompatible with the eternal security of the believer or "once saved, always saved". Have you ever tried to do something like that? You could accomplish such an exercise. You are creative in defending your own faith. If you would make a habit of doing such exercises it will make you much more prudent, much less inclined to proclaim that a particular widely held-belief is "blown away" by a few Bible verses.

Catholics do the same thing when they cite Mt. 16:18-20. Many Catholics think that the concepts of apostasy and restoration are "blown away" by this passage. Surely you have seen this and experienced frustration at some Catholics' unwillingness to consider a different way of interpreting the passage. I have, after ten years of trying to discuss these kinds of question with people, come to the realization that there is no discussion to be had with the most confident souls who are predetermined in their minds to not see how another religious point of view has biblical integrity and consistency. Most folks are content to believe that people on the other side are basically blinded or stupid toward what is very plain to any who are not blind or stupid. You have the ability to avoid this false sense of contentment, this false sense of security, by making it your task to defend non-Mormon points of view, not so as to deny your faith, but so as to gain a greater respect and influence among those who you oppose and raise the level of discussion. When we say that a few verses "blow away" some widely held belief, the only result is that the adherents of that belief know better, and "blow us off", as they should.

We are agreed that falling from grace is a possibility. You and I are agreed that the Scriptures do not teach that if you are once saved/justified you can never be lost. But if I were a Calvinist, I could begin by quickly pointing out that the passage you cited from Romans 12 is speaking of the "corporate relationship" between God and the Jews, not individual salvation. So now we have to go about proving that the same model that applies corporately also applies individually. This takes much more work, and it can be done in my opinion, but the necessary result is that you and I should perceive that it is only with difficulty and diligent effort that we could ever bring a committed knowledgable Calvinist "along for the ride" to conclude that he was wrong. To admit the necessity of the task, is to admit that Romans 12 in no way "blows away" Calvinism.

Rory

[Zakuska]

We are agreed that falling from grace is a possibility. You and I are agreed that the Scriptures do not teach that if you are once saved/justified you can never be lost. But if I were a Calvinist, I could begin by quickly pointing out that the passage you cited from Romans 12 is speaking of the "corporate relationship" between God and the Jews, not individual salvation. So now we have to go about proving that the same model that applies corporately also applies individually. This takes much more work, and it can be done in my opinion, but the necessary result is that you and I should perceive that it is only with difficulty and diligent effort that we could ever bring a committed knowledgable Calvinist "along for the ride" to conclude that he was wrong. To admit the necessity of the task, is to admit that Romans 12 in no way "blows away" Calvinism.

Rory

Actually its Romans 11 and Im not really sure how you could jump to the conclusion that it is speaking about a "corporate relationship between God and Jews" beings how the chapter is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles as well as being the home of one of the favorite Christian prooftexts for "Individual Salvation".

Romans 11

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

[3DOP]

Actually its Romans 11 and Im not really sure how you could jump to the conclusion that it is speaking about a "corporate relationship between God and Jews" beings how the chapter is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles as well as being the home of one of the favorite Christian prooftexts for "Individual Salvation".

Romans 11

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

You are right, it is Romans 11. Although I said Rom 12, I meant Romans 11. I didn't jump to a conclusion. I offered an alternative that defends a position I do not believe. But okay, I am sure you still see it is an unreasonable "jump to an alternative point of view that I do not believe". You can pray for me, that I will more clearly see how ridiculous and indefensible Calvinism is in light of Romans 11. I will pray for you that you will more clearly see that intelligent and reasonable interpretations of Romans 11 are compatible with Calvinism.

God bless,

3DOP

[Zakuska]

You are right, it is Romans 11. Although I said Rom 12, I meant Romans 11. I didn't jump to a conclusion. I offered an alternative that defends a position I do not believe. But okay, I am sure you still see it is an unreasonable "jump to an alternative point of view that I do not believe". You can pray for me, that I will more clearly see how ridiculous and indefensible Calvinism is in light of Romans 11. I will pray for you that you will more clearly see that intelligent and reasonable interpretations of Romans 11 are compatible with Calvinism.

God bless,

3DOP

To tell you the truth Rory... Ive never heard of this "Corporate Relationship" business. Perhaps we could discuss that further. And yes we all need Prayer! Im praying for you.

[3DOP]

To tell you the truth Rory... Ive never heard of this "Corporate Relationship" business. Perhaps we could discuss that further. And yes we all need Prayer! Im praying for you.

Zak that's great. Thank you very much.

Rory

[Zeta-Flux]

The very most important thing that must be maintained is that however salvation happens, whatever comes first, it must be in a manner that precludes the remotest possibility that "any man should boast" (Eph. 2:9?). If I make it to heaven, because I die with a spark of charity in my soul, it will be by grace alone, and if that makes me sound like a Calvinist, that's fine. Nobody is wrong about everything. As a Catholic, I would emphasize that God will not violate our will, thus making for "cooperation", while Paul would probably deemphasize the will in favor of God's sovereignty. But to maklelan, we would both have a God guilty of being "arbitrary". I understand his objection. I understand why Calvin said grace is irresistible. I believe there is a way to excuse God of being arbitrary without developing a doctrine that makes it appear that a man can choose God of his own natural volition.

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree on two counts.

First, if I make it to heaven it will be by grace, and I can't boast in myself. I agree with you there. But by saying that is was by grace alone you are also saying that those who do not end up in heaven didn't make it because they were denied grace. Otherwise, you are not really talking about it being by grace alone.

Second, I don't see the primality of unboastability. But that is a minor quibble, as I agree that we should not boast of ourselves.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[cksalmon]

If the required "belief" is given to a person as a gift of grace (ie, Calvinist election) then it can't be considered a work, from what I understand. What sets a work apart from a gift of grace is human volition. If humans are utterly depraved they cannot begin to believe anyway because nothing they do is correct; all their works, the things they choose to do (if they have such choice, depending on the Calvinist you talk to) are evil. But God elects some to salvation, granting them the belief necessary for salvation, so these verses can be interpreted through a different lens to get a different conclusion.

Hi Life:

But few of my LDS interlocutors have been as open to correction re: what Calvinists actually believe as you have shown yourself to be. Some of our interactions have been acrimonious, some helpful. But, on balance, let me say that I appreciate your attempt here and elsewhere to attempt a fair defense of a position you personally despise.

In light of that, let me suggest some ways in which you can hone your understanding, if only so that you might provide a better-sustained critique in future.

I'll comment on your comments apiece.

If the required "belief" is given to a person as a gift of grace (ie, Calvinist election) then it can't be considered a work, from what I understand.

Generally, this is true. Salvific belief in Jesus Christ as YHWH's Lord and Savior of the world is a gift bestowed by God upon the unregenerate soul. When God opened Lydia's heart to hear what Paul was saying, she performed no "work," she obeyed no commandment, by responding in faithful belief. Her volition was effectually altered, one might say, radically invigorated and decisively inclined, toward belief in Christ.

God opened her heart (Acts 16.14). Contra Zakusa's upside-down, very confused "argument," Lydia didn't first keep a commandment of faith (as Zakusa would have it), whereupon God subsequently and consequently opened her heart to receive what Paul taught about Jesus. Rather, the text is manifestly and crystally clear that Lydia's response of faith was consequent to God's opening her heart to receive the truth about Christ. God opened; Lydia consequently responded.

What sets a work apart from a gift of grace is human volition.

Contrary to what you seem to imply here, for the Calvinist, human volition is fundamental to each and every act any human ever has or ever will instantiate.

No biblical Calvinist would ever argue that human volition is somehow absent from works of God's grace in their lives. Never. For the Calvinist, regeneration is a sovereign, unilateral, restructuring of the ground of human volition. That is, it is pre-volitional, not anti-volitional.

Why should that be?

Because those who are in the flesh (i.e., the unregenerate) cannot please God; they are not even able to do so (Rom 8.. The mind that is set on the flesh is unable to submit to the law of God (Rom 8.7). No one's denying that the "Law of God" absolutely, and without fail, requires belief in Christ. The point is that no one in the flesh is even able to begin to please God by adhering to what God requires of the world. It's not possible. For man to please God, he must be born again of the Spirit of God. Until God does something first in the heart of man (until God fundamentally alters man's volitional grounding), that man cannot please God. He has no inherent means of actually obeying the command of God to believe.

If humans are utterly depraved they cannot begin to believe anyway because nothing they do is correct; all their works, the things they choose to do (if they have such choice, depending on the Calvinist you talk to) are evil.

No. Calvinists don't believe that "nothing they do is correct." Many things that unregenerate men do are "correct." God bestows common grace on his creation. No one is ever absolutely as bad as he might be. That's not what total depravity means. God restrains evil. Lots of atheists do lots of good things. Not all things they do "are evil." What unregenerate men will never, ever do (and are fundamentally incapable of doing), is to actually please God by submission to Christ as Lord and Savior in any relevantly-salvific sense.

As always, impervious to reason, exegesis, or common sense, Zakusa's post is an ill-conceived rebuttal in desperate search of a corresponding argument.

mak writes:

In my opinion, it all boils down to works or arbitrary salvation. I've been unsuccessful trying to get anyone with a good grasp of the issue to engage me on it.

The Calvinist affirms Psalm 136.6. And Rom 9.7-24. Perhaps mak has been unsuccessful in trying to get someone with a good grasp of the issues to indulge the belief that God is not free to do whatever he pleases to do, without any reference whatsoever to the court of human opinion.

But mak sums up the rank Pelagian heresy more succinctly than could I when he writes:

I personally believe faith is built on works.

Note that works underlie faith in this paradigm. While mak pays lip service to the idea that God's grace is fundamental, he clearly perceives faith to be consequent to works: "Faith is built on works."

[Zakuska]

Generally, this is true. Salvific belief in Jesus Christ as YHWH's Lord and Savior of the world is a gift bestowed by God upon the unregenerate soul. When God opened Lydia's heart to hear what Paul was saying, she performed no "work," she obeyed no commandment, by responding in faithful belief. Her volition was effectually altered, one might say, radically invigorated and decisively inclined, toward belief in Christ.

God opened her heart (Acts 16.14). Contra Zakusa's upside-down, very confused "argument," Lydia didn't first keep a commandment of faith (as Zakusa would have it), whereupon God subsequently and consequently opened her heart to receive what Paul taught about Jesus. Rather, the text is manifestly and crystally clear that Lydia's response of faith was consequent to God's opening her heart to receive the truth about Christ. God opened; Lydia consequently responded.

You missed something cksalmon. Lydia already had faith in God prior to Paul speaking with her, and prior to God "opening her heart" to obey the directions of a prophet of the Lord.

Acts 16

13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

14 a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Because those who are in the flesh (i.e., the unregenerate) cannot please God; they are not even able to do so (Rom 8.. The mind that is set on the flesh is unable to submit to the law of God (Rom 8.7). No one's denying that the "Law of God" absolutely, and without fail, requires belief in Christ. The point is that no one in the flesh is even able to begin to please God by adhering to what God requires of the world. It's not possible. For man to please God, he must be born again of the Spirit of God. Until God does something first in the heart of man (until God fundamentally alters man's volitional grounding), that man cannot please God. He has no inherent means of actually obeying the command of God to believe.

If thats the case then the parable of the sower cannot be true.

Matt 13

18

[cksalmon]

You missed something cksalmon. Lydia already had faith in God prior to Paul speaking with her, and prior to God "opening her heart" to obey the directions of a prophet of the Lord.

You've missed my argument, Zak. Lydia worshiped the God of Israel, rightly and commendably so. She had no faith commitment to Jesus Christ. The text clearly maintains that her reception of the Gospel message of Jesus as Israel's Messiah was dependent upon God's opening of her heart to that salvific truth. No Calvinist would agree with you that her prior commitment to Israel's God was a libertarianly-free, autonomous act of volition that inhered solely in her without any prior reference whatsoever to God's prevenient grace in her life.

If thats the case then the parable of the sower cannot be true.

Matt 13

18

[WalkerW]

Those whose hearts God has chosen to open.

Which means those whose hearts God chooses not to open are damned. But it is technically not their fault because they can't follow God unless He chooses them. Salvation merely becomes the arbitrary selection of God. I don't see any logical way around that.

I'd have to agree with Eastern Orthodox philosopher David Bentley Hart:

"I quite explicitly admit in my writing that I think the traditional Calvinist understanding of divine sovereignty to be deeply defective, and destructively so. One cannot, as with Luther, trace out a direct genealogy from late medieval voluntarism to the Calvinist understanding of divine freedom; nevertheless, the way in which Calvin himself describes divine sovereignty is profoundly modern: it frequently seems to require an element of pure arbitrariness, of pure spontaneity, and this alone separates it from more traditional (and I would say more coherent) understandings of freedom, whether divine or human.

This idea of a God who can be called omnipotent only if his will is the direct efficient cause of every aspect of created reality immediately makes all the inept cavils of the village atheist seem profound: one still should not ask if God could create a stone he could not lift, perhaps, but one might legitimately ask if a God of infinite voluntaristic sovereignty and power could create a creature free to resist the divine will. The question is no cruder than the conception of God it is meant to mock, and the paradox thus produced merely reflects the deficiencies of that conception.

Frankly, any understanding of divine sovereignty so unsubtle that it requires the theologian to assert (as Calvin did) that God foreordained the fall of humanity so that his glory might be revealed in the predestined damnation of the derelict is obviously problematic, and probably far more blasphemous than anything represented by the heresies that the ancient ecumenical councils confronted." (Interview with Hart, The Christian Century, 10 January 2006)

[WalkerW]

Rom 3.10-12:

Paul wholeheartedly approbates and incorporates this text into the very careful soteriological treatise that is the letter to the Romans.

Paul is quoting from Ps. 14, which contrasts the "fools" and the people of God. For it to fit the concept of total depravity, you would have to admit that Paul is ripping it out of context (which he might be).

[Zakuska]

You've missed my argument, Zak. Lydia worshiped the God of Israel, rightly and commendably so. She had no faith commitment to Jesus Christ. The text clearly maintains that her reception of the Gospel message of Jesus as Israel's Messiah was dependent upon God's opening of her heart to that salvific truth. No Calvinist would agree with you that her prior commitment to Israel's God was a libertarianly-free, autonomous act of volition that inhered solely in her without any prior reference whatsoever to God's prevenient grace in her life.

And here I thought Jesus WAS the God of Israel. So apprently she did already have faith invested in him.

But of course... because the prophets preached the gospel of Jesus Christ back then too.

And who hears the word and understands it, such that fruit is borne?

Those whose hearts God has chosen to open.

A no that would be the good ground.

This is similar to the refiner who brings out the potential in the nugget of gold, or the Diamond cutter that takes a hunk of rock and makes it beautiful. The potential is already in the material to be something great. Yes it is God who brings out the potential and makes the diamond ring, but the good is already IN the substance he is working with. He just brings it out.

Right. Until God removes the "stony heart" and gives a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11.19-20), there is no good ground whatsoever.

Clearing a forest, preparing a field and then plowing and removing stones has nothing what so ever to do with wether the ground undernieth all that is good ground or not.

Well, according to Paul, it is utterly and definitionally impossible for the natural man to diligently seek God.

Rom 3.10-12:

"gone astray" denotes that they did not start at a point of "total depravity" as Calvanism dictates. They had to start at a state of good to move to a state of "gone astray".

All biblical Calvinists also believe that "there is none that seeketh after God," "there is none that understandeth," "there is none righteous," "there is none that doeth good," no, not even one! So, the reward for diligent seeking is not somehow prior to God's prevenient intervention. It is consequent thereunto.

So do Mormons. But this verse causes problems for your understanding of what Romans 3:10-12 is really saying.

Gen 7

1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

If there are none righteous "no not one". Then how was God able to see that Noah was righteous in his generation?

Hint:

Gen 7

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

I'm reminded of a question posed to my seminary mentor during his dissertation defense. He was asked, "Who was the first 'Calvinist' in the Christian tradition?"

His response: "You mean, other than Paul?"

Sorry, but Romans 3 actually causes huge problems for "total depravity" as defined by Calvanism.

[kantgomo]

Gen 7

1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

If there are none righteous "no not one". Then how was God able to see that Noah was righteous in his generation?

Hint:

Gen 7

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

Sorry, but Romans 3 actually causes huge problems for "total depravity" as defined by Calvanism.

Back in Gen. 6:8 Noah found favor with the Lord. v.9 "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation" Then beginning in ch. 6, v.13 God gave the command to build the arc. In chapter 6 we see Noah as having found favor with the Lord, being declared righteous and blameless in his generation and then after that, God giving the command to build the arc. Noah obeying the command to build the arc after having been declared righteous.

And, do tell how Romans 3 causes huge problems for total depravity as defined by Calvanism?

[Vance]

Back in Gen. 6:8 Noah found favor with the Lord. v.9 "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation"

So then, Noah was a RIGHTEOUS man! I get it.

Then beginning in ch. 6, v.13 God gave the command to build the arc.

Ok, so because Noah was a RIGHTEOUS man because of his obedience, God could trust him to obey an additional commandment. I get it.

In chapter 6 we see Noah as having found favor with the Lord, being declared righteous and blameless in his generation and then after that, God giving the command to build the arc. Noah obeying the command to build the arc after having been declared righteous.

Right! Due to Noahs past RIGHTEOUSNESS through OBEDIENCE, God trusted him to be obedient to a new commandment. I get it.

Thank you for making the point so clear. There were and are righteous people.

[cksalmon]

Paul is quoting from Ps. 14, which contrasts the "fools" and the people of God. For it to fit the concept of total depravity, you would have to admit that Paul is ripping it out of context (which he might be).

Paul is employing what must have been a familiar text in an extended argument of his own design. Note the statement that his quotation is premised to support authoritatively:

Rom 3.9: Claim

What then? are we [Jews] better than they [Gentiles]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved [read here: charged] both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.

Rom 3.10: Supporting premise

As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one . . . " (etc).

There is little question that Paul employs the quoted portion of Psalm 14 to condemn all of humanity ("Jews and Greeks" is a totalizing identifier). He reiterates the point in Rom 11.32: "For God hath concluded them all (Gr. ??????????? [sunekleisen]; lit. 'he enclosed [them all]') in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

Whether or not Paul ripped the quotation from context is no doubt an interesting discussion, but is largely beside the point of how he actually does employ portions of that Psalm: viz., to relegate all people to the status of unrighteous, non-seekers after God.

Carrying on, Paul acknowledges that the Law judges those who are under the Law, but extends the ramification by concluding that the purpose of the Law is "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3.19).

Why? Because "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. . . ." (Rom 3.20).

His concludes to a radically alien conception of righteousness: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. . ." (Rom 3.21).

And, again, Paul collapses any disjunction between Jews and Gentiles in this regard: "for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. . . ." (Rom 3.22-24).

I'll pass over the intervening steps and simply state Paul's conclusion: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom 3.28).

The logic is clear: when Paul quotes Psalm 14 he intends his reader to understand that, apart from the righteousness found in Christ, no human being is righteous, no one seeks for God (neither Jew nor Greek), no one does good, all have turned away, all are worthless, etc.

[cksalmon]

And, do tell how Romans 3 causes huge problems for total depravity as defined by Calvanism?

As Rom 3 contains some of the clearest statements in all of scripture of the truths gathered under the theological rubric of "total depravity," I'd be interested in seeing that as well.

[Zakuska]

As Rom 3 contains some of the clearest statements in all of scripture of the truths gathered under the theological rubric of "total depravity," I'd be interested in seeing that as well.

The problem is. Noah was neither Jew OR Greek. So there is no way in hell to put him under the umberella of "total depravity".

Second for Paul to say they have "all GONE astray" means that at some period before this Israel was walking in God statutes or they wouldn't have a path that they have Gone ASTRAY from.

Third, Noah was declared righeous AFTER he obeyed God and built an ark.