The Knowledge of God, Degrading Passions & A Depraved Mind

Christianity can be shown to be, not “just as good as” or even “better than” the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience. – C. Van Til

I thought I would take some time to share my theological and philosophical reflections lately as I continue to explore the wonderful phenomenon of how humans experience knowledge. Unless you are a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, you acknowledge that human beings are able to know and function within this state of affairs we call reality. Oh my, I have lumped epistemology and metaphysics together in the same sentence. What will the academic philosopher think of me now? Frankly, prof., I don’t really give a darn. All in good jest of course. I want to turn your attentions to Romans 1, a chapter that I believe serves as a basic foundation for a distinctly Christian epistemology. In this chapter we not only touch on modern controversies of epistemology, but also on some of the modern moral controversies of human sexuality; controversies which stem, as we shall discover, from man’s unethical approach to how he interprets himself, his experience of the world, and yes, his experience of God.

 As he lays the foundation for what he is about to discuss with the Roman Christians, the apostle Paul tells them that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He then informs these ancient Christians, and us I might add, that the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous of men, who by the way, are suppressing the truth in unrighteous. Now, there is no question about the fact that God is revealing his wrath. That is clear enough. But why is this happening? Paul uses a very interesting Greek word to draw his inference. Please remember, this inference is the revealed truth God. God is revealing these things through Paul. What Paul writes, God speaks. The Greek word dioti is an adverbial causal conjunction. It modifies the verb apokalupto. Paul is about to tell us why God is revealing his wrath from heaven. Dioti is a marker of a causal connection between the idea in v. 18 and what is about to follow in v. 19. The reason is linked to man’s knowledge of God. Paul says that that which is known about God is evident within them. These are they who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And who does that? All unregenerate men do that until the glorious light of the gospel is used to open their eyes and that work is only performed by the Holy Spirit. This knowledge of God is evident within them for God made it evident within them. When God makes knowledge evident within someone, I would say we are safe to assume that they know. They are in possession of knowledge. They know and experience the truth of God’s existence.

After clearly point out that men are in possession of the truth of God, and that these men willingly suppress that truth, Paul goes on to expand on his indictment. And make no mistake about it, this is an indictment. Paul elaborates on this fact by saying that God’s invisible attributes, his eternal power, and his divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. Therefore, they are without excuse. Notice that Paul did not say that men ought to infer God from what was made. Paul said that men do actually see clearly and understand something about God’s attributes, his eternal power, and his divine nature through what has been made. The experience of being created in God’s image as well as the experience of God’s created order ensure that all men everywhere know God; they possess the truth about God by way of their experience of these things. And this experience is impossible to avoid. It is the experience of reality, God’s created world.

After expanding his indictment, Paul feels the need to elaborate even further. He says that even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God nor did they given thanks. Instead, they went down a different path. They became, humanity became mataioo in their dialogismos. They become utterly worthless in their reasoning, in their cognitive faculties. Man possesses the truth about God. He knows God. He understands enough about God to render him without a defense for this behavior. There is no excuse for men to reject belief in God. There is no excuse for men to refuse to give God thanks in all things. None! This behavior is condemned by God as idolatry. The traded to image of God for a different kind of image. Rather than accepting the truth that humanity is creating in the image of God and owes God all that he is, they, we, exchanged that image for a variety of different ones. In modern culture, we have exchanged the image of God for evolutionary theory. Paul has told us the wrath of God is being revealed. Now he is about to tell us how that wrath is being revealed.

Paul uses the Greek conjunction, dio, to tell us how God is pouring his wrath out on the earth. We saw a hint above when Paul references the complete uselessness of unregenerate cognitive faculties. Now he tells us, using this little word which is a logical inferential. It is the conclusion of his indictment. For this reason, God gave them over to the lusts of their own hearts. How is God’s wrath revealed from heaven? First, God gave them over to degrading passions. Atimia is a Greek word that has a sense of a state of dishonor or disrespect. The Greek word, Pathos employed by Paul in this instance, carries the sense of a strong desire. In other words, God’s wrath is revealed in the shameful, dishonorable, and disrespectful strong desires of humanity. This behavior is evidence of the wrath of God. And it is brought about because humanity experiences God in everything they do and refuses to interpret that experience righteously, giving thanks to God for all they are. But that is not all. Not only is humanity suffering from shameful strong desires because of its obstinate behavior, there is more.

God not only gave humanity over to degrading passions, he also gave them over to a depraved mind. Here the Greek word is adokimos, and it means unqualified, worthless, base. God has given unregenerate men over to a mind that is worthless. The word for mind carries the sense of intellectual perception, understanding, you know, the cognitive faculties of human beings. In this context it means a mindset, a way of thinking, an attitude, an outlook, or, a worldview. Unregenerate men display the wrath of God upon the human race by way of embracing a worthless, unqualified, base worldview. The thought-pattern of unregenerate humanity is debased.

In summary then, we observe the revealed wrath of God on humanity in the form of unregenerate men having sank into the moral confusion of even the most basic of human behaviors, sexuality. We witness the degrading passions of homosexuality not only being freely expressed in our culture, but we also observe a frightening dogmatic insistence on celebrating such behavior. Moreover, we observe an irrational and extreme hostility toward those who disagree with these practices. Second, the wrath of God is also revealed in the expression of an anti-God, anti-Christian worldview that reduces not only to moral confusion but also to an irrationalism that only be made sense of in the Christian worldview. We murder innocent babies in the womb. We celebrate perverted sexual promiscuity. We affirm men who want to be classified as women. We are forcing our young girls to share bathrooms and shower facilities with the opposite sex. And somehow, this is supposed to be progress? What we see in American culture in particular is the clear revelation of the wrath of God in the immoral sexual perversion of homosexuality along with the absolute abandonment of anything remotely resembling a worldview or mindset that makes sense. In closing, man knows God exists. Man understand something about God within God’s created order. This knowledge comes to him. Man is the passive recipient. This knowledge is unavoidable. But man forces his own interpretation on things. He rejects the Creator, exchanges God for anything but God, to include evolutionary theory. He interprets everything apart from God refusing to acknowledge or thank God in any way. God reveals his wrath by turning men over to degrading passions and lusts as well as depraved minds. Man’s desires and cognitive faculties are spiraling downward without restraint. And in it Christians are instructed to interpret this phenomenon as the revelation of the wrath of God.

This condition makes one wonder why God stopped to save any of us. Why do that? The purpose of God’s electing and saving grace is located in God. Indeed, the mystery of the loving-kindness and grace of God is above and beyond anything we could ever hope to understand.

J.P. Holding's Total Depravity: A Calvinist Responds (II of III)

Holding

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I would also note as well that John 6:65, which I previously included in the above, does not say that God enables people to believe -- I think that that is a Calvinist reading of the verse. Indeed the connection between belief and the Father's permission is not specified -- it's just as well to say that the Father has to act as an access-granter because people can and will join the movement under false pretenses that no man can discern, which would make much better sense under the client-patron relationship understanding.

Response

A discursive review of James Patrick Holding's writings reveals that he is radically enamored with social-science criticism to the point that it is almost an idol. Holding fails to realize that Jesus did not adopt the mindset of the cultural mileu in which He found Himself. While it is true that understanding the social context of Scripture can help enrich our understanding of the text, it is nowhere near the silver bullet Holding seems to think it is. 

The client-patron relationship has nothing whatever to do with rightly understanding what Jesus is getting at in John 6. First of all, the assumption is that people actually want to join, but do so under false pretenses. Such an understanding of “joining” the Christian group not only contorts total depravity, but flattens membership in the Christian community to some sort of sociological expression. This is not anywhere close to orthodox soteriology. A look at John 6:64-65 clearly indicates that Jesus is explaining why some men do not believe. Jesus says, I have given you the truth, but some of you do not believe. The reason you don’t believe is because it has not been granted to you by my Father to believe. In other words, the only way men can believe in Christ is if God grants them faith! That is simple, basic exegesis 101. The Greek phrase “dia touto is well attested in the NT, showing up some 64 times. Perhaps Mr. Holding would be well served to take a discursive look at this construction before he introduces social science theories into his interpretation of this passage. Nonsense!

Holding

I can honestly interpret Genesis 6:5 under no different principles. This is undoubtedly exaggeration for effect, for of course one cannot literally have thoughts of the heart that are continually evil (for we must all sleep sometime); certainly the hearts of these antediluvians were wicked and depraved, but whether this means that they were depraved to the extent that total depravity requires simply cannot be determined from this verse -- much less can it be said that this automatically applies to all men throughout history, although it offers persuasive evidence that it is so. Nor does this verse say anything either way about whether men were unable to behave otherwise.

Response

Holding demonstrates severe inconsistency here. In this case, he allows room for hyperbole but in John 12:32, he insists on a more wooden-literal approach. It seems abundantly clear to me that Holding’s hermeneutic is a hermeneutic of convenience. He switches up his method wherever he finds it convenient so that he can hold to his theological bias. If he were consistent, he would insist on a literal approach to this text the same as he did on John 12:32. The truth is that context determines the meaning of a text more than any other single factor. Suffice it say the inconsistency is obvious in Holding's methodology. There is no rhyme or reason why we should take John 12:32 quite literally and why we should not do so here.

Holding

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This verse offers a standard Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration for the purpose of expressing a point: That we're sinners and we express it from even the youngest age; in this case, David expressing the utter depth of his own sin, in light of events with Bathsheba. While I in no way mean to imply that our sin is not serious or extensive, it is no more legitimate for the Calvinist to use this verse as they do than it is for the Skeptics (who make the same arguments using it), and the verse in no way says that we can't make a right choice.

Response

The comments here are quite obscure. I am not clear what Holding is arguing this text means. Is this a denial of original sin? Is Holding a full-blown Pelagianist? It is hard to say based on these comments. David is not exaggerating his sin to express a point. He is uttering a divinely revealed truth: he was born in iniquity. Before he was even out of his mother’s womb, he was a sinner. Moreover, Calvinism does not contend that we cannot make a relatively right choice. It contends we cannot make right choices as God sees right choices. Our choices, while unregenerate, always contain an element of idolatry and self-worship in one way or another. Our righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy God. What is Holding saying here? It is not clear. This interpretation is another product of social-science criticism. This method has a very strong tendency to ignore the divine nature of Scripture and impose on the writers of the text the same rules one would impose on every other text. The Scriptures are not like every other text. The Scriptures are God revealing Himself to mankind with the goal of transforming the lives of men who read the divine revelation that is Scripture. Holding fails to account for this fact repeatedly.

Holding

 

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

As we know, Jeremiah is known for his hyperbole for the sake of emphasis, as is quite the norm in an oral culture; moreover, this verse has the structure of a proverbial saying and should therefore be read in that light. It cannot carry the absolute sense that a Calvinistic argument requires. (This also applies to two other verses from Jeremiah that have been used [Jer. 4:22, 13:23].)

Response

Once again, Holding displays his hermeneutics of convenience to argue that we are not all that bad. The heart really isn’t deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked! Jeremiah is merely using hyperbole. This verse is not a proverb and should not be read as such. It is in the middle of a prophetic utterance.

Feinberg comments, "In OT usage the heart signifies the total inner being and includes reason. From the heart come action and will. Notice the connection between "heart" and "deeds" in vv.9-10. Some think v.9 is a personal confession of the depths of Jeremiah's heart (so Cundall); others refer the text to Jehoiakim or Zedekiah. Actually, the passage best fits all humanity. The human heart is desperately corrupt and, humanly speaking, incurable...Who can plumb the depths of the heart's corruption and sickness? Even its owner does not know it." [Feinberg, Charles. TEBC w/NIV. 486]

Holding

-Oliver Wendell Holmes

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Palmer [Palm.5P, 17] points to this verse and argues:


A baby never desires or decides to be born. He never contributes an iota to his own birth. In the whole process from conception through birth, he is completely passive and totally unable to control his birth. In a similar fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step toward his rebirth.


Though this relates to the "U" aspect of TULIP as well as "T", let's consider it now. I asked here at one point whether Palmer is getting his biological facts straight; I have never understood that a baby is a totally passive bystander in the birth process, but rather, does a little struggling of its own instinctually, which would rather reduce the impact of Palmer's analogy, since no one thinks instincts have anything to do with conversion.


As it turns out, a science-minded reader has told me that, indeed, Palmer is wrong: A baby even determines when it will be born, for it secretes a hormone that induces labor.


But I rather think the analogy Palmer draws is stretched anyway. The metaphor of new birth is appropriate; how else would the idea of a new creation be better expressed? In order for this argument to work, Palmer has to show that there was no better analogy available which would have illustrated both a new creation and a active choice behind the matter. Otherwise, he is simply stretching the analogy for his own purposes -- and we may next ask questions like, "What is conception analogous to?"

Response

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read these comments. These have to be some of the most incredible comments I have ever read. A baby secretes a hormone that causes labor to begin. So this secreting of the hormone is an act of the will? The baby actually cogitates that it is now time for me to leave this place and enter the world. Let’s see, where did I leave that packet of hormone I was given a while back? Really? Can anyone take such a statement seriously?

I am curious as to what exactly is a “science-minded” reader? If this person were a scientist, I am sure Holding would parade his credentials around for all to see. We are left wondering what a "scientific-minded" reader is. My guess is that a “science-minded” reader is someone who is curious about science and that is about the extent of it. In that case, I would be inclined to say that many of us are “science-minded” readers. I know I am. Dr. Craig Bissinger, a Gynecologist admits that they are still not certain what actually triggers labor. Science is nowhere close to reaching a consensus on what really triggers labor. One thing seems abundantly clear: it is not the will of the baby that actually triggers labor and to infer that it is seems to me to be quite ridiculous. Even if it were true that the baby secretes a hormone to begin the process, that is not at all an active role in the birth process. The release of the hormone is outside the infants control. Moreover, if one really wanted to use Holding's analogy, they would have to say that the born again experience is in deed initiated by man and he only needs to doctor's help completing the birth process. Is that biblical soteriology? I would submit that such an analogy is the equivalent of full-blown pelagianism.

By now it is painstakingly obvious that whatever view J.P. Holding has regarding total depravity, it is not the view shared by the reformed community. We conclude our views of J.P. Holding's views on depravity in our next blog. Holding says he is going to write a book about Calvinism. That is exactly what we need: one more person who does not understand Calivinism writing about why something they don't understand is wrong.

"We more frequently require to be reminded of the obvious than informed."

-Samuel Johnson

"We need education in the obvious more than the investigation of the obscure."