The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve,
I would like to know where you were going with your questions to James on day 4 from Romans 1 when you were wanting him to answer yes/no. You said on your radio program later that you were trying to lead somewhere but never had time. Could you elaborate?

Thanks!

Yes, I am glad for the opportunity to finish my thoughts, since they were truncated on the broadcast.

As you know, there are several key passages that are used to prove the Calvinist idea of total depravity. The ones in the Old Testament are so easy to debunk, that I did not intend to waste time on them, but the ones in the New Testament actually need a bit more careful exegesis.

I was hoping to ask a series of exegetical questions about several passages in the New Testament which Calvinists (and Dr.White) commonly use to establish their depravity doctrine. Those passages were going to be Romans 1:18ff, Romans 3:9-19, Romans 8:5-7, Ephesians 2:1-2 and Ephesians 4:17-19.

I did not intend to ask any "trick questions." They were going to be the type which, were I to pose them to any honest exegete, could be answered with such short answers as to allow a series of questions to be covered in a short time. They were mostly "yes" and "no" questions (like, "Does this verse say X?"), and others that would require only one-word, or short, answers (like, "Could you show us which verse makes this point?").

Since I was using my presentation time for this line of questioning, I did not intend to ask Dr. White to use up any more time than necessary with long answers. I was not going to ask any questions that required long answers. Anyone could have given honest, short answers (if they did not object to the implications of the true answers to the questions), but, as you know, Dr. White did not choose to give direct answers, and when I tried to call him back to the line of questioning, he became offended and the entire interview broke down.

I will tell you below what my questions were going to be, and what the honest and true answers to them would have been. Before I do, however, I need to make a distinction that Dr. White either did not see, or else pretended not to see, and that is there is a difference between the doctrine of total depravity and the doctrine of the universal sinfulness of mankind.

Obviously, all Christians of every theological persuasion believe in the latter, but Dr. White implied, in his evasive and irrelevant response to my opening questions, that by questioning total depravity, I was denying the universal sinfulness of man. Therefore, instead of saying anything relevant to my questions, he said things like, "If there is some group of people out there who are righteous without Christ, where are they?" This is a great time-wasting technique, but of course, it is entirely disingenuous, because it does not address the issue being discussed, and even gives uninformed listeners the idea that my view is something much easier to refute than is the actual case.

Here is the line of exegetical questioning I intended to follow (and the answers an honest Calvinist would have given):

On Romans 1:18-32

Q1: Is it your opinion that, in Romans 1:18-32, Paul describes the effects of the fall on all mankind?
A1: Yes.

Q2: These effects attach to all men from birth?
A2: Yes.

Q3: Which verse tells us that Paul is describing all people?
A3: Verse 18.

Q4: Are there any other verses in the passage that tell us specifically that Romans one is describing all people?
A4: No. The whole passage describes one category of people, introduced in verse 18.

Q5: So it is in verse 18 that we learn that Paul is describing all men?
A5: Yes.

Q6: So the verse reads: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Which word or phrase in verse 18 tells us that all men are encompassed in this statement?
A6? Huh? Well, it's obviously implied.

Q7: But doesn't Paul tell us he is speaking only of "men who suppress the truth"?
A7: Well, all men suppress the truth.

Q8: Perhaps they do, but we are only inquiring as to what Paul says in his actual statements—remember, we are exegeting, not eisegeting. So could you show me which part of Romans 1:18 contains the information that all men suppress the truth, or that Paul is talking about all men?
A8: As I said, it is implied. Paul brings this out clearly in chapter three.

Q9: Yes, we will have to examine chapter three separately. But is it not possible, even if chapter three does tell us of man's universal sinfulness, that, at this stage of Paul's argument, in chapter one, he may not intend to be making that precise point?
A9: You have to understand how Paul is setting up his argument of the universal sinfulness of the Jews and Gentiles—all mankind—in order to demonstrate that all men need a Savior.

Q10: Let us agree that it is important to follow Paul's line of argument to its conclusion, but just here we are not so concerned about what his later conclusion will be. We are looking at the beginning of his argument, and trying to observe what Paul is saying and what he is not saying. And I think we have established that he does not say here, that all men suppress the truth?
A10: That's your opinion, but I believe he is implying it.

Q11: I am only trying to show that, even if the universal sinfulness of man is a conclusion Paul reaches in chapter three, he has said nothing about the birth condition of all men in chapter one.
A11: I am confused. I have only been taught to look at Romans one-through-three a certain way. All the great commentaries see it as I do.

Q12: But we are not exegeting the commentaries, at the moment. There is much to be said for exegeting the text itself. Once we have seen what it says, we can get around to seeing whether the commentaries agree with what we find there, don't you think?
A12: Where are you going with this? I don't understand your point.

Q13: Well, my point is that, in Romans one, Paul expresses God's great wrath toward certain people, whom Paul goes on to describe in very great detail. These people, he says, once knew the true God (v.19, 21—This is the truth that they are said to be suppressing), but they replaced their worship of the true God with the worship of carved images of animals, birds and such. Because of these activities, the same people "became fools," they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (vv.21-22). In these verses, Paul clearly is describing an acquired state, not a birth condition. These same people eventually abandoned natural sexual relations in favor of homosexual activities (vv.26-27), and also practiced all of the abominations listed in verses 29-32. This is what a disinterested exegesis of the chapter would yield. Correct?
A13: Yes.

Q14: So you believe that Paul is saying that all human beings have done all these things?
A14: I suppose not all sinners have dabbled in homosexuality, but Paul is talking generally about the different kinds of sins that some of the Gentiles have practiced. Obviously, some have been homosexuals.

Q15: Then perhaps Paul is talking about the people who actually fit his description, and not those who do not. Paul does not claim to be describing all men, and our observations tell us that not all men fit the description he gives. Thus, neither exegesis nor observation would tell us that this chapter is describing all mankind.
A15: But that would mean that I have to rethink my whole paradigm about Romans one-through-three.

Q16: No one said life would be fair.
A16: Dang!

Q17: Shall we move along to looking similarly at Romans 3?
A17: Isn't your time up yet?

Thanks Steve. I hope your trip to Texas was fruitful. They say everything's bigger in Texas!

One comment:

Q16: No one said life would be fair.
A16: Who are you to reply against...Oh, nevermind.

Steve wrote: Q6: So the verse reads: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Which word or phrase in verse 18 tells us that all men are encompassed in this statement?

The phrase translated "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" describes what the wrath of God falls upon.

Steve wrote: Q7: But doesn't Paul tell us he is speaking only of "men who suppress the truth"?

No. The phrase "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" describes the basis for the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. As the chapter continues, Paul expands on this idea.

So the verse is not describing a subset of men (those who hold the truth in unrighteousness), but rather is describing what the wrath of God falls on (all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men), and then further explains the reasons for this (they hold the truth in unrighteousness).

Cheers,
Bob

Note: Unfortunately, "bshow1" is a participant whose posts and registration (along with many others) was lost in the forum meltdown, and we have not been able to find or restore what was lost. The following post was responding to one of his posts. —Moderator

bshow1 wrote:

Steve wrote: Q6: So the verse reads: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Which word or phrase in verse 18 tells us that all men are encompassed in this statement?

The phrase translated "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" describes what the wrath of God falls upon.

Steve wrote: Q7: But doesn't Paul tell us he is speaking only of "men who suppress the truth"?

No. The phrase "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" describes the basis for the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. As the chapter continues, Paul expands on this idea.

So the verse is not describing a subset of men (those who hold the truth in unrighteousness), but rather is describing what the wrath of God falls on (all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men), and then further explains the reasons for this (they hold the truth in unrighteousness).

Cheers,
Bob

Due to the lack of punctuation, this would be an area where serious grammatical evidence would be interesting as to whether the "who suppress..." is a paranthetical or not (with consistent examples given from Paul's other writings). I think it could be seen either way, but makes more sense to me seeing it NOT as a parenthetical. However, for all the painstaking grammar and Greek discourse on these passages, I have never seen this explored or addressed directly.

Do you not at least acknowledge that it could be read either way? If not, I don't think you're being honest with yourself -- if so, please explain not just the way you see it (as above), but why it is so clearly so (from the text, alone, please). I find it ironic that it is the non-Calvinist that is trying to stick to the text here.

darin-houston wrote:Due to the lack of punctuation, this would be an area where serious grammatical evidence would be interesting as to whether the "who suppress..." is a paranthetical or not

Steve quoted the NIV, but interestingly most of the other major English translations place a comma after men (KJV, NJKV, NASB).

Consider also Young's Literal Translation:

"for revealed is the wrath of God from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men, holding down the truth in unrighteousness."

There is no word "who" in the Greek; the two words "who suppress" are translating the one Greek word "katecho", which is a present active participle meaning "holding" (as in Young's above).

So the participle describes what men are doing (present active action); they are holding down the truth in unrighteousness.

If you want to leave room for some other group of men (those not holding down the truth in unrighteousness), I don't see how you can press this verse into your service.

darin-houston wrote:Do you not at least acknowledge that it could be read either way?

No, because of the reasons given above.

Cheers,
Bob

bshow1 wrote:There is no word "who" in the Greek

Before somebody complains, I'd better be more specific. What I mean is that in this passage, there is on separate Greek word that is translated into the English word "who". There is a single Greek word that is being translated into two English words "who suppress".

I don't mean to imply that the Greek language has no word that can be translated as "who".

There is no word "who" in the Greek; the two words "who suppress" are translating the one Greek word "katecho", which is a present active participle meaning "holding" (as in Young's above).

The comma insertions in other translations don't answer my question other than to suggest that other smart people have found the need for the comma, but they haven't explained why either.

I understand what you're saying about "who" here, but that seems to support the non-Calvinist interpretation -- I'm no grammarian, but the "holding" present active participle would suggest it isn't a parenthetical describing something additional about the individuals but instead that it is a complete thought and explaining rather "who" is being referred to here.

darin-houston wrote: The comma insertions in other translations don't answer my question other than to suggest that other smart people have found the need for the comma, but they haven't explained why either.

The comma has the function in English of setting the clause off.

For example, If I say to my wife:

"Go get the kids, who are playing outside"

The clause "who are playing outside" tells something about "the kids", and explains why she needs to get them. It doesn't separate kids into two groups, those who are playing outside and those who aren't.

On the other hand, if I said:

"Go get the kids who are playing outside"

I am now qualifying the group of kids. Which kids? Those playing outside.

darin-houston wrote:I understand what you're saying about "who" here, but that seems to support the non-Calvinist interpretation -- I'm no grammarian, but the "holding" present active participle would suggest it isn't a parenthetical describing something additional about the individuals but instead that it is a complete thought and explaining ruther "who" is being referred to here.

(I don't know what you mean by the "non-Calvinist interpretation". Is there a list of those somewhere?)

The phrase is a participle. It tells what men are doing. They are holding down the truth in unrighteousness. The verse doesn't say which men; it just says "of men" (anthropos).

The verse tells *what* (God's wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men), and *why* (because they are holding down the truth in unrighteousness). The universality of this condition is developed throughout the argument, culminating in 3:9-23.

bshow1 wrote:

darin-houston wrote: The comma insertions in other translations don't answer my question other than to suggest that other smart people have found the need for the comma, but they haven't explained why either.

The comma has the function in English of setting the clause off.

For example, If I say to my wife:

"Go get the kids, who are playing outside"

The clause "who are playing outside" tells something about "the kids", and explains why she needs to get them. It doesn't separate kids into two groups, those who are playing outside and those who aren't.

On the other hand, if I said:

"Go get the kids who are playing outside"

I am now qualifying the group of kids. Which kids? Those playing outside.

darin-houston wrote:I understand what you're saying about "who" here, but that seems to support the non-Calvinist interpretation -- I'm no grammarian, but the "holding" present active participle would suggest it isn't a parenthetical describing something additional about the individuals but instead that it is a complete thought and explaining ruther "who" is being referred to here.

(I don't know what you mean by the "non-Calvinist interpretation". Is there a list of those somewhere?)

The phrase is a participle. It tells what men are doing. They are holding down the truth in unrighteousness. The verse doesn't say which men; it just says "of men" (anthropos).

The verse tells *what* (God's wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men), and *why* (because they are holding down the truth in unrighteousness). The universality of this condition is developed throughout the argument, culminating in 3:9-23.

Forgive me, but that is all very conclusory -- and I understand the use of a comma where one is provided -- I want to know why the comma is to be implied here.

(Have you ever read the book below? It's quite funny and informative as to lost punctuation in our day).

See:
Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation