Total Depravity and the American Indian

[Guest]

Romans 1:18-23 (New King James Version)

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19. because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21. because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22. Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

This, among other passages, seems to be a favorite of those who teach total depravity of all men everywhere, at all times, prior to regeneration. I would like to consider how this passage would apply to the American Indian prior to the arrival of the white man.

1. Could it be said of the AI (American Indian) that they were suppressing the truth in unrighteousness when they were totally ignorant of that truth?

2. As I understand Paul, he is saying that the AI had no excuse for not believing in a God of some sort; observing the natural world ought to lead one to that conclusion.

3. Even though observation of nature would incline the AI to believe in a god or gods, by that observation alone they could not truly know God. By observation of nature alone one would not be able to determine whether God was friend or foe, whether God loved or hated him. Nature brings many blessings but also fearful calamity, disease, and death.

4. The text cited in Romans seems necessarily to apply only to those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness", and them alone. How could it be shown to apply to the AI? Would not the application be to those who had at least heard a bit of the truth? Can it be shown that even one man has had an accurate knowledge of God where the gospel has not gone, absent a miracle?

From the above, I can see no way this text in Romans can be seen as support for the doctrine of total depravity.

[Guest]

I don't think you are going far enough back. At one point, all of Noah's descendants knew the truth. Suppressing that truth would be un-righteous. As descendants of Noah, did they not at one time suppress the truth and loose it for future generations? I wouldn't take this text as proof of total depravity, but *can* see how it could "fit" a group of people that at one time *had* the truth but ultimately ended up building idols to the created instead of worshiping the Creator.
D.

[Guest]

You are both correct.

I believe this passage is an indictment of Israel, a nation that once knew God (Rom.1:21), but who "exchanged the glory" of God for images (Rom.1:23/ Ps.106:20/ Isaiah 2:8), and "the lie" (Rom.1:25/ Isa.44:19-20), so that God "gave them up" to their own ways (Rom.1:24, 26, 28/Psalm 81:12).

It is they who thought themselves wise (Rom.1:22 w/ 2:17-20) but became fools and blind (Rom.1:21-22/Matt.23:17, 19).

Thus they "suppress the truth (Rom.1:18/ 1 Thess.2:14-16/ Matt.23:13) and have come under ultimate wrath (Rom.1:18/ 1 Thess.2:15-16/ John 3:36).

The heathen could not know from nature the things about God that pertain to salvation, as Homer pointed out. But the Jews "knew" for "He has shown it to them" (Rom.1:19). That is why the "O Man" of 2:1 (who is the self-confident Jew--vv.17ff) is without excuse (Rom.1:20/ 2:1).

[Guest]

I see, so the "unrighteousness of MEN" spoken of, together with,
"Therefore you are without excuse, O man," and "of the Jew first, and also of the Greek." and "For when the nations," and "in a day when God shall judge the secrets of men", and "What then? Do we excel? No, in no way; for we have before charged both Jews and Greeks all with being under sin,
as it is written: "There is none righteous, no not one;
there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God."
"They are all gone out of the way, they have together become unprofitable, there is none that does good, no, not one."

and

But we know that whatever things the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law; so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be under judgment before God,

This is all just the Jews eh?
Steve, what Bible are you reading from man?
Seriously.

Mark
Final word guaranteed.

http://doctrinesofgrace.net/modules/web ... log_id=130

[Guest]

Final word guaranteed.

yeah, ok

[Guest]

Tartanarmy,

You wrote:

"Steve, what Bible are you reading from man?"

Apparently a different one from you. For example, mine does not contain the phrase, "For when the nations..." in Romans, as yours apparently does. In fact, I did a search of 16 versions of the Bible, and did not find this phrase anywhere in Romans. So I would have to ask, "What Bible are you using, Mark?" (I really don't want to know, because I don't want to tempt you to shatter the last vestiges of your integrity by inducing you to break your word one more time). The closest approximation to this wording is found in Romans 2:14, which every major translation renders, "For when Gentiles..." But this is not in the context of the argument of Romans one, so it does not necessarily enter into its interpretation.

The Bible I read does not put all the expressions you quoted in one chapter, nor in the same argument with the contents of chapter one. My Bible accommodates all of those phrases (and all the others that are found in Romans) at different points in a developing argument, which begins in chapter one.

However, the Bible I use (it's the NKJV, but, ultimately, I depend on the Greek text) does support my contentions, which I made in my previous post. If yours does not, then I suggest that one of two things is called for--either you need a more careful Bible translation, or else your Bible translation needs a more careful reader.

Of course, no one who has had any experience with you here really thinks for a moment that you can be trusted to keep your promise to go away. That requires an honest man to command such confidence in people. However, I will not be the one to tempt you (beyond what you are able to endure) to break your word yet again. I will ask you no questions, thus calling for no response from you.

[Guest]

Steve/Homer

Why do you restrict Rom 1:20 to Jews only? As Paul continues his train of thought into Rom 2; "Therefore"...he clearly has in mind both groups of people; 2:9 " there will be tibulation and distress for EVERY SOUL of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also to the Greek. vs 11; for their is no partialty with God". vs 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; (American Indians Homer!) ...NASB

Paul's argument is clearly linked! The same flow of thought continues into ch 3 where Paul describes the "Jew" as having the greater burden, but all are equally under sin, (Jew and Gentile) vs 10; There is none righteous, not even one"...11 There is none who understands, there is no one who seeks for God 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS, THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE...NASB

So since you stated this is not in the context; i.e. nations or gentiles, I too would like you to explain what you are thinking here. It seems to me Paul is pretty all-inclusive of all groups of people.

Quoting Steve: "The heathen could not know from nature the things about God that pertain to salvation, as Homer pointed out".

You added the word "salvation" to your argument. That's not Paul's point as yet. The heathen or anybody else for that matter will not be judged for what they "don't know", but by what they either did know or do know.
We agree that not all people throughout history have been recipients of God's special revelation to His covenant people. Apparently, Paul is addressing a knowlage of the TRUE GOD that was forsaken by the heathen at some point in history in exchange for "nature worship".
Paul is evidently making his case that no one has an excuse, whether heathen or Jew. They will be judged by whatever the revelation they have recieved.

Peace in Jesus,
Bob.

[Guest]

Steve/Mark

Quote "Of course, no one who has had any experience with you here really thinks for a moment that you can be trusted to keep your promise to go away. That requires an honest man to command such confidence in people. However, I will not be the one to tempt you (beyond what you are able to endure) to break your word yet again. I will ask you no questions, thus calling for no response from you".

Would you two in the name of Jesus please "kiss and make up"?
Really brothers, this is getting old. It would be the "brotherly" thing to do.

A fellow brother,
Bob

[Guest]

My post from which you quoted gives my reasons for saying Romans 1 is directed against the Jews (Aug.13, 8:27 AM). Since you are unfamiliar with my lectures on Romans, I will outline the flow of Paul's argument in the first three chapters (if you want more detail, I recommend my lectures):

Paul assumes that his Jewish reader already believes the Gentiles to be depraved, but he wants them to see that the Jews are no better (3:9). The Jews did not keep the law, but they believed they were superior to the Gentiles in their standing with God, merely because they, uniquely, possessed the law (Rom.2:13). This is what Paul is up against in Romans 1 through 3.

In order to show the Jews that their race is as wicked as are the Gentiles, whom they despise, Paul sets a trap for them, whereby he describes a very wicked race, without telling them who it is he is describing (though there are enough allusions to the Old Testament to tip-off the observant). The Jewish readers are intended to assume that the people Paul is describing are the Gentiles, and to be agreeing with his assessment all the way. Then he springs his trap, in 2:1ff, showing that they are the ones he is describing. This is exactly what Nathan did to David (2 Sam.12:1-7) and Jesus did to the Jews Matthew 21:38-41, 43).

In chapters 2 and 3 (though not in chapter 1), Paul sometimes mentions the Gentiles in his general assessment of the depravity of all men. But, because the depravity of the heathen is a given, Paul's point is that the Gentiles and the Jews are in the same boat (Rom.3:9). Paul does not have to argue for the wickedness of the Gentiles, since that is obvious to all and, thus, goes without saying. Paul focuses his argument on proving that Jews are not uniformly more godly (2:9-11), except in their own opinions of themselves (2:17-20) even if they have the law and the Gentiles do not have it.

He even points out that some "uncircumcised" Gentiles (he means Gentile Christians) are more obedient to God, though they were never given the Law (2:14, 26), than are some Jews, who have the law, but who bring reproach upon God by their failure to obey it (2:21-24, 27).

As he closes chapter 2, he says that being a "true" Jew is a matter of the heart, not of race or circumcision. He then opens chapter 3 anticipating the reader's objection that this declaration seems to grant no advantage to the Jews over the Gentiles. Paul corrects this, saying that the possession of the "oracles of God" (the scriptures) is indeed a great advantage that they have been given (3:2), but then points out that advantages are not always used to the profit of their possessors, because the unsaved Jewish man, despite possessing the oracles of God, is not very obedient, and thus is not a "better" man than is the unsaved Gentile man (3:9).

This brings us to one of the favorite sections for the Calvinist. Paul lists a medley of phrases from five different Psalms and one from Isaiah, decrying the wickedness of very bad sinners (3:10-18). These scriptures are not to be viewed as being without hyperbole, nor to be taken as Paul's universal indictment of every man. That is not Paul's point. In verses 10-18, Paul is defending the proposition of verse 9, viz., that Jews are no better than Gentiles. The verses, no doubt, would be an apt description of many Gentiles as well, but it is not a part of Paul's purpose to point this out. You see, every one of the passages he quotes, in its original context, is a reference to wicked Jews. By citing these verses, Paul is proving his main contention, i.e., that Jews (all of whom possess the law) are capable of every degree of iniquity that they despise in the Gentiles.

How do I know that Paul is making this point? Because he tells us so. In verse 19, he states it as a given that the Old Testament scriptures (like those he quoted) are directed toward "those who are under the law" (i.e., the Jews). Thus, his point is that, while this litany of denunciations in the Old Testament may be, in a secondary sense, applicable to others who are not Jews, the passages were, in fact, written as a description of David's and Isaiah's own people.

Paul concludes this part of his argument in verse 20: "Therefore, by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified..." --a direct undermining of the very basis of the Jew's sense of superiority over the Gentiles. His victim is dead.

This is Paul's argument in the passages you were curious about.

[Guest]

Steve,

Quote: " These scriptures are not to be viewed as being without hyperbole, nor to be taken as Paul's universal indictment of every man".

Are you saying in this particular case alone, Paul is not making a "universal indictment of every man"? I may not use or understand the term "total depravity" in the same way some Calvinists might. Someone said it this way, "a totaly depraved car is a rust spot on the road". I agree that we may not be as "bad" or as evil as we could be. However the "universal judgement "of God upon all is that we die, whether Jew or Gentile. You see Paul's case as toward the Jew. Maybe it is. Maybe he was laying a trap for them. But is that really important? We do not have to see every nuance that you see in order to come away with the 'gist' of what Paul was saying. I know most of the discussion is being aimed at a particular doctrinal view of Calvinists. Maybe a better term in describing man's fallen nature would be a "radical inabilty". Describe it how you will, 'ain't none of us gettn' out of this world alive'. Since we all die, (and Paul levels the playing field) and that because of sin, the only remedy or hope for a better future is 'no condemnation in Christ'. So really, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what our doctrinal views are on man's depravity. We all die, then comes judgement. Whether you are a mother Theresa or a Joseph Stalin, or an American Indian, with or without a knowlage of God, or if you like to worship rocks and trees, you and I still die under His righteous judgement. Amen?

As one radically depraved sinner to another, I bid you His Peace.


Saved in Jesus,
Bob