Steve: James White debate question you didn't get to ask

[_Steve]

One problem I find among many Calvinists is that they never say, "Well, I suppose this verse could be taken the way you are seeing it..." This refusal to show even this much humility does not work in their favor, as they must think it does. Anyone can see that a verse might mean something, when it is pointed out to them. The Calvinists' insistence that it is not even an option to consider reveals them to be more interested in defending a camp than in exploring the truth. It must be a rare observer who can not see this when it is happening. It does not make Calvinism look like a strong position—only an insecure one.

When I said (often) in the debate, "This verse could mean that, but it could also mean this..." I was taken to task for suggesting the Bible is ambiguous. I have received personal emails from Calvinists in the last few days, who were more upset about my leaving more than one possibility open than they were about anything else I said. "The Word of God is NOT ambiguous!" was their mantra. Those who wish to take this position are welcome to do so, but they will fare better at the Calvinist chat channels, where free thought is discouraged, than they will fare here.

I do not think that Romans 1:18 reads very naturally to say what Calvinists want it to mean. That is, I don't think there is any grammatical reason to suggest that Paul is referring to all mankind. Even if I were to agree that all mankind indeed did fit Paul's description (which plainly is not the case, since not all men have bowed to images of beasts, or have turned to homosexuality), I would still say that the grammar of the sentence does not declare this to be so.

I will allow, since Paul is not always clear in the expression of his ideas, that there is a possibility that he intended to say what Calvinists want him to say here, but it is not the most natural way to understand the sentence. Further, he goes on to describe these people as those who "knew God"(v.21) and "knew the righteous judgment of God"(v.32); who "changed the glory" (v.23) of God and were "given over" (vv.24, 26, 28) by God—all of which point to Israel as Paul's target here (compare, for example, Jer.9:24/ Ps.106:20; Ps.19:9; Ps.81:12).

As it turns out, Paul is in fact talking about Israel, as he clarifies in Romans 2:1 and 17). Thus, Romans 1:18-32 provides a fair summary of Israel's history of privilege, of apostasy, and of suppressing the truth. This last accusation, that of suppressing the truth, is particularly leveled against them by Jesus and Paul, elsewhere (Matt.23:13 with 1 Thess.2:15-16).

That Paul is building a case, in Romans 1 through 3, against Jewish bigotry and self-righteousness can hardly be denied when chapter 2 is included in the consideration (a chapter about which I need say nothing, since its teaching is transparent and on the surface). He has not directed any of his remarks, in chapters one and two, against the Gentiles.

This thesis is not overthrown by Paul's later saying "We have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin" (3:9). The charge against the Gentiles is nowhere specifically laid in these chapters (in fact, positive things are said about the Gentiles, in 2:14-15). The abominable idolatry and immorality of the Gentile World went without saying, so Paul said nothing directly about it.

What needed to be pointed out to the Jews was that, as a race, they had not behaved any better than had the Gentiles, whom they abhorred as a lesser breed without the law. Thus, Paul's entire argument has been against Israel, though he did not say so plainly in chapter one, so that they might track with him, thinking he was talking about someone else. He sprang his trap by pointing out to them, in 2:1, that they were the culprits he was describing. Paul's tactic here is no different from Nathan's, in confronting David (2 Sam.12:1-7), or that of Jesus, in denouncing the Jews in the parable of the vineyard (Matt.21:40-43).

In the context of this argument, it makes little sense for Paul to universalize the specific accusations in chapter one, as if he was talking about all humans. He was not even talking about all Jews. There were many Jews who did not do the things he describes in this chapter. But there were Jews who did all of these things.

Such an argument is not calculated to make every reader feel that he has done all of those things, and is thus the guilty party described in the passage. The argument is to show that, since Jews (no less than the Gentiles) have been found doing such things as Paul lists, throughout their entire history, it cannot be thought that "being Jewish" automatically relegates one to a spiritually or morally superior class. It is that misperception that Paul is seeking to deflate in these chapters, as he makes unmistakably clear in the second chapter.

[Guest]

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.

The comma is inserted by most of the English translations, because it emphasizes the nature of the clause as explanatory of what the men are doing in their ungodliness and unrighteousness.

As I've said, the verse itself does not define (or limit) the extent of "of men". Many (most?) commentators believe the immediate context of 1:18-2:17 is in reference to the Gentiles, and 2:17-3:8 to the Jews, with 3:9-31 of both together, establishing the universality of both sin and the remedy for sin, justification through faith in Christ.

I wonder if you or Steve could help me understand the case for understanding this verse to argue for some other group of men that do not hold down the truth in unrighteousness?

Who are these men, and what is their standing with God? Does the wrath of God abide in them? Do they have need of a Savior? Where are these men in view anywhere in the first few chapters of Romans?

If they don't exist, what's the point of the whole argument?

Cheers,
Bob

[_Steve]

Bob,

You write:

"I wonder if you or Steve could help me understand the case for understanding this verse to argue for some other group of men that do not hold down the truth in unrighteousness?"

I suppose we both posted at the same time. See my post just above yours.

[Guest]

Steve, I really enjoyed the dialogue above. I was wondering whether you happened to have prepared similar dialogues for the other parts of the Bible you had planned to discuss (Romans 3:9-19, Romans 8:5-7, Ephesians 2:1-2 and Ephesians 4:17-19). I'm probably getting ahead of myself since I haven't even listened to your tapes on Romans yet. (I'm currently working through the Bible in your series but am only in Exodus and may have to detour ahead to Romans to get to it more quickly.)

Regards,

CThomas

[_Steve]

CThomas,

I have prepared the question for each passage. It would take very little time for me to post them here, with the answers. I will try to get around to that soon. However, I am now focusing on my topics for this weekend in Seattle. I'll try to get back to this soon.

[Guest]

The comma is inserted by most of the English translations, because it emphasizes the nature of the clause as explanatory of what the men are doing in their ungodliness and unrighteousness.

No offense, but I don't think you understand what I'm asking (or I'm missing something).

I understand why one would put a comma there if one has already determined that the clause was a parenthetical to do as you suggest above, but that begs the question.

Once we have established a comma belongs there, I would have no problem understanding the verse as you do. However, the question is how we can tell that the comma belongs there. If this can only be determined by your presupposed interpretation, then the question becomes how one can be so certain of that interpretation.

[Guest]

One problem I find among many Calvinists is that they never say, "Well, I suppose this verse could be taken the way you are seeing it..." This refusal to show even this much humility does not work in their favor, as they must think it does. Anyone can see that a verse might mean something, when it is pointed out to them. The Calvinists' insistence that it is not even an option to consider reveals them to be more interested in defending a camp than in exploring the truth. It must be a rare observer who can not see this when it is happening. It does not make Calvinism look like a strong position—only an insecure one.

I was listening to James White's show for the day following the debate. You really should hear him talk about the debate and how we are all just post-modern pelagians (he wasn't even willing to call Steve semi-pelagian).

Anyway, that's not the reason for my post. After discussing the debate, he took some callers and someone called to inquire as to his view of the origin of evil. He made a point I hadn't heard before and I was impressed by his response -- he distinguished between Calvin's approach and that of Jonathan Edwards. I think he gave Calvin's teachings a little too much credit in his characterization, but I appreciated that he views Edwards as having taken things way beyond what scripture allows (or requires) on such a difficult subject. I was actually surprised to hear him do anything but praise Edwards and his (in my opinion) often demon-inspired vitriolic expression of God's nature.

But, it made me realize something -- I wish White and others like him could see soteriology in the same light because this is precisely the thing I believe the Calvinists are doing now (the Edwards approach to evil) and why it can be difficult at times for a non-Calvinist to present a "positive case." In may ways, the non-Calvinist position is, indeed, a defensive position against a doctrine that is trying to prove more than the bible actually provides clear teaching for.

White gets so frustrated when the the non-Calvinist suggests a position isn't really clear (at least when a particular view is juxtaposed against other scripture), and he suggests the non-Calvinist is trying to create ambiguity in a post-modern sort of relativism to "all get along" when in fact there truly is a degree of ambiguity that has to be resolved by philosophy outside of scripture to come up with his positive position (or a wooden reliance on Greek syntax in the face of conflicting scripture). I find it odd that he would suggest the non-Calvinist approach is a result of post-modern thinking when people were being burned at the stake for such beliefs well before the modern era.

[Guest]

Jim from Torrington called The Narrow Mind (Gene Cook) to discuss the Two Wills of God -- check it out here...

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=30566

[Guest]

James White slanders and misrepresents people on a regular basis.

[Guest]

James White slanders and misrepresents people on a regular basis.

I have to say I agree 110% One thing that really bugs me about James is that he seems to think that he has to make a tremendous effort to make others look bad to make himself appear to be right. Well, that is after he throws in a bunch of big theological words to be impressive.

I honestly see little Christ-like love in his ministry. Then again, maybe you only get partial love from a ministry that serves a God that only loves partially Himself.

Regards, Greg