In a Christianity Today article, Kevin A. Miller wrote what he titled “A Postmodern Rant.” Miller purposed that it is time for us to end the conversation about how postmodernism is in some mysterious way the future of the church. Here is a little of what he wrote.
“PPMs (proponents of postmodernism) want us to listen to the postmodernizing culture, to enter relationship and accept our common brokenness. Who would argue? But while we love the relativist, let us hate the relativism. It puzzles me why postmodern theory has drawn such praise from Christians, when its essence (beneath the turgid prose) is that there is no objective truth. The "rules" of science or morality, pomo scholars contend, are as arbitrary as the rules of baseball. But as Dinesh D'Souza reminds us, "Postmodern theory suffers from the weakness that the postmodernists themselves don't believe it." When they get sick, they check into a modernist hospital, and when they fly, they step onto a plane built by engineers whose work must not be as random as the postmodernists claimed.”
Miller, as you can see, quotes Dinesh D’Souza. The extended quote can be found in his book “Letters to Young Conservatives” or a 2004 article on the Tothesource website: http://www.tothesource.org/1_7_2004/1_7_2004.htm.
At the recent apologetic’s conference that my church hosted, D’Souza was asked about the effect of postmodernism upon the church. This effect is found most prominently but not exclusively in the ECM (emerging church movement). D’Souza quickly responded by saying that there is nothing to be concerned about because there, in reality, is no one living by postmodernist or relativist beliefs. Just below the surface within every relativist is an “emerging” absolutist just waiting to get out. D’Souza’s point was that postmodernism is mostly a rhetorical strategy aimed at disarming traditionalists and orthodox Christians. But, why disarm those who believe in truth? Here is what D’Souza says:
“It is a great intellectual challenge to make the case for morality and truth at a time when many in the West are no longer sure that such things exist, or that they can be demonstrated. The decline of belief in an external moral order is one of the most important political facts of the past two centuries. Indeed, this decline has created the “crisis of the West.” This crisis is not simply one of the “death of God.” Rather, as Nietzsche predicted, if religion withers away, so does morality. The reason is that religion is the source of morality, and therefore morality cannot long survive the decay of religion. How do postmodernists respond to this decline of morality? They welcome it, in the name of freedom. That was Nietzsche’s response as well. They speak about creating “new values.” Some even dream about creating a “new man” free from the traditional impediments of human nature.”
So the point is that once traditional religion has been muted then morality cannot survive. This will then be replaced by “new values;” a kind of anti-morality. My personal prediction is that the new anti-morality which would emerge out of the acid decay of postmodernism will be hyper-absolutist. Far from being relativistic, the “new values” will be totalitarian in the extreme.
|
I was discussing this in my Religion in America class this past Monday and made the same observation. When people find there is no one who gives direction, they enjoy it for a short moment. Having discovered that the chaos is impossible to live with, they search for a messianic figure who will lead them out of their confusion. My illustration for this from the 20th century was Hitler and post-WWI Germany.
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm
"Their every step hounded by market economics, academics cannot preach multiplicity when their lives are dominated by what amounts in practice to consumer fanaticism. The world has narrowed intellectually, not broadened, in the last ten years. Where Lyotard saw the eclipse of Grand Narratives, pseudo-modernism sees the ideology of globalised market economics raised to the level of the sole and over-powering regulator of all social activity – monopolistic, all-engulfing, all-explaining, all-structuring, as every academic must disagreeably recognise. Pseudo-modernism is of course consumerist and conformist, a matter of moving around the world as it is given or sold.
In this context pseudo-modernism lashes fantastically sophisticated technology to the pursuit of medieval barbarism – as in the uploading of videos of beheadings onto the internet, or the use of mobile phones to film torture in prisons. Beyond this, the destiny of everyone else is to suffer the anxiety of getting hit in the cross-fire. But this fatalistic anxiety extends far beyond geopolitics, into every aspect of contemporary life; from a general fear of social breakdown and identity loss, to a deep unease about diet and health; from anguish about the destructiveness of climate change, to the effects of a new personal ineptitude and helplessness, which yield TV programmes about how to clean your house, bring up your children or remain solvent. This technologised cluelessness is utterly contemporary: the pseudo-modernist communicates constantly with the other side of the planet, yet needs to be told to eat vegetables to be healthy, a fact self-evident in the Bronze Age. He or she can direct the course of national television programmes, but does not know how to make him or herself something to eat – a characteristic fusion of the childish and the advanced, the powerful and the helpless. For varying reasons, these are people incapable of the “disbelief of Grand Narratives” which Lyotard argued typified postmodernists.
This pseudo-modern world, so frightening and seemingly uncontrollable, inevitably feeds a desire to return to the infantile playing with toys which also characterises the pseudo-modern cultural world. Here, the typical emotional state, radically superseding the hyper-consciousness of irony, is the trance – the state of being swallowed up by your activity. In place of the neurosis of modernism and the narcissism of postmodernism, pseudo-modernism takes the world away, by creating a new weightless nowhere of silent autism. You click, you punch the keys, you are ‘involved’, engulfed, deciding. You are the text, there is no-one else, no ‘author’; there is nowhere else, no other time or place. You are free: you are the text: the text is superseded."
He coins a term for a change that I think is real. The article is thought provoking at the very least. It does focus on culture and literary 'psuedo modernism' v. postmodernism. He describes a shift to a more shallow, base, superficial culture as a result. Not hard to get from the total conformity this predicts to totalitarianism....
so we can make sure everyone is 'nice'.
As for your prophecy, perhaps within the now frustrated conservative religious right there exists a growing influence that creates the politics where totalitarianism and its fundamental intolerance thrives and grows.
He or she can direct the course of national television programmes, but does not know how to make him or herself something to eat – a characteristic fusion of the childish and the advanced, the powerful and the helpless.
●I think that one little phrase, “a…fusion of the childish and the advanced” is a superb description of the bent of contemporary culture.
Silly ol' me but where the post modernist claims there is no objective truth then how is it that "traditional religion has been muted"? Can you not speak effectively anymore? Or is it that your "objective truths" no longer persuade?
●Let me see if I can straighten out your thinking a little. First, postmodernists can claim that there is no objective truth no matter what is happening with religion. Secondly, I am projecting what would happen if traditional religion was muted. As both D’Souza and Nietzsche predict, if religion was muted then morality would “wither away.” I am not saying that this has happened and neither is D’Souza. Thirdly, you may want to actually read the post before you comment.
●One thing we can say for certain: the LDS is not persuading anyone with “objective truths.”
Oh yes, you'll need help with that. The last sentence above speculates that your present discussion though lively will probably get you nowhere given God will have His way with you.
Oh yes, you'll need help with that.
The last sentence above speculates that your present discussion though lively will probably get you nowhere given God will have His way with you.
postulate away....but considering God's promise to man that the True Gospel will not depart (from here on out), how will your religious freedom will be snuffed? Seems you are sailing into the trades without following seas…Oh yes, you'll need help with that. The last sentence above speculates that your present discussion though lively will probably get you nowhere given God will have His way with you.
●Again, I am truly amazed that you have an advanced degree in education. I guess this says a lot about the present condition of the American educational system.
●Hint; the point of the post is not to postulate what will happen in the future.
●Secret insight for Gecko that everyone else already knows: the purpose of the issue regarding the demise of religion is to serve as a thought-question to get at another insight. Drum roll please…the insight is that postmodernism and relativism (as sociological movements) are the attempt to supplant traditional morality with an alternative set of moral absolutes.
Therefore:
1. The post is not about my religious freedom.
2. The post is not about the True Gospel departing.
3. The post is not about me sailing on any seas.
4. The post is not about God having His way with me.
●I repeat that it would be helpful if you would read the post before you make a comment.
Then I read the following 9 blogs, which basically I do not understand, except for John the Squabler who noted, "If you argue that absolute truth does not exist, why should I believe you?" I looked up postmodern & relativism. Post modern should mean that which comes 'after' modern, it means going back to pre-modernism. Relativism means 'relative to the 'limited' capabilites of the human mind' real being only that which suits the particular individual or group. What faculty is there which points out that the mind is limited. Limited by what? One thing is certain, man requires a philosophy, if he is to know what to do with his life. We don't have to know its a philosophy, or think of it in those terms, but we inately develop a kind of road map we follow in our daily pursuits, some can be found in Neitzsche or Marx or Rand or the comics. It is what gets him up in the morning, bathes and dresses him, breakfasts him, and sends him off to work in an orderly fashion. Therefore, Religion works only in the criminal sense it has taken possession of that crucial aspect of human existence, and twisted it for its own nefarious purposes, which is basically, exploiting productive man. It does NOT teach him that his life has a value and is the ultimate value for all his actions and values. Religion condemns mans "nature" his natural tendency to philosophize for himself, (remember the tree of knowledge)of what? Good & Evil! They are what Religion says they are, not necessarily what they REALLY are. Wake up folks, Religious Morality is a scam, just like Communism or Naziism, to steal your personal perception of the value of your life to you, and give it over to them. The things you want, the GOOD STUFF, money, possessions, consumerism and commercialism are only evil because THEY say it is. If they are metaphysically evil, (which of course they are, that's the whole purpose of inventing a supernatural God) then the GOOD STUFF of man's basic nature, is all the work of the Devil. Catching on yet??? If I'm right, then God is Evil and the Devil is Good. Pius X11 sided with Hitler. So if the crushing weight of religion vanished from man's back, he would become a despot, worse, a mindless savage wreaking havoc on mankind, just like all the other animals of the planet do to their species. We've had religion in one form or another for over 5000 years, 5000 years of morality, yet history is a litany of war, barbarianism, torture, pain, etc. etc. ad nauseam. Want to real skinny on religion? Listen to Osama bin Laden. And finally, I happen to believe my mind is limitless, I just won't live long enough to use even a small portion of it, and I'm 80 now. Frankie
The things you want, the GOOD STUFF, money, possessions, consumerism and commercialism are only evil because THEY say it is. If they are metaphysically evil, (which of course they are, that's the whole purpose of inventing a supernatural God) then the GOOD STUFF of man's basic nature, is all the work of the Devil. Catching on yet???
●Okay, Frankie, I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but, Christianity does not deem things such as consumerism, money, possessions, etc. as “metaphysically evil.” Christianity holds that all things created by God are good. Therefore, it is the misuse of God’s good things that is classified as “evil.” So, the question should be what constitutes the “good” use of such things as possessions? Obviously, you have a strong opinion about how possessions should be used. What is your opinion about this? Is there an evil use of one’s possessions?
●Also, Christians strongly oppose the idea that man’s basic nature is the “work of the Devil.” Man’s nature is the work of God. Okay, as such, if man’s nature is the work of God, how does that affect your view of Christianity?
●By the way, the Bible teaches (1Timothy 6) that God has “given us all things to enjoy.” When Paul wrote this, he was referring to all material things. Knowing this, how does this impact your view of the Christian religion?
●Additionally, I think I have also mentioned this to you before; but, are you aware that the self-admitted atheist regimes of the 20th century are responsible for over 100,000,000 deaths through purges, gassings, starvations, tortures, and all manner of mass murders? I think it was Stalin that said (I paraphrase) that the death of a few people is a tragedy, but the death of millions is not even noticed. These mass genocides—as you may know—were carried out in the attempt to establish an atheistic utopian paradise. These regimes make Osama look like a piker.
●I don’t see any problem with this statement. It nicely describes why we need God’s grace. The statement that men “do not choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures” does not necessitate that we attribute to God the creation of evil.
I know you will appreciate the following from Aquinas as he reflects on Augustine. The question he is considering is; “Whether the first man was created in grace?”
I answer that, Some say that man was not created in grace; but that it was bestowed on him subsequently before sin: and many authorities of the Saints declare that man possessed grace in the state of innocence.
But the very rectitude of the primitive state, wherewith man was endowed by God, seems to require that, as others say, he was created in grace, according to Ecclesiastes 7:30, "God made man right." For this rectitude consisted in his reason being subject to God, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul: and the first subjection was the cause of both the second and the third; since while reason was subject to God, the lower powers remained subject to reason, as Augustine says [Cf. De Civ. Dei xiii, 13; De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 16. Now it is clear that such a subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason, was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin; since even in the demons the natural gifts remained after sin, as Dionysius declared (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it is clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to God, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace; for it is not possible that the effect should be of greater efficiency than the cause. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13) that, "as soon as they disobeyed the Divine command, and forfeited Divine grace, they were ashamed of their nakedness, for they felt the impulse of disobedience in the flesh, as though it were a punishment corresponding to their own disobedience." Hence if the loss of grace dissolved the obedience of the flesh to the soul, we may gather that the inferior powers were subjected to the soul through grace existing therein. (ST I, Q. 95, A. 1)
●Simply put, Aquinas is saying that man needs God’s grace to achieve his purpose. Man without God’s grace is like a car without gas.
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Both Wesley and Calvin knew that man was created by God with a naturally depraved state of not desiring His counsel and direction even resenting it. Your car metaphor actually fails in comparison because in building a car to require gas to serve a purpose, we were not in likeness created by God. We did not create the car so that it would only take a fillup easily. It does not mechanically obstruct the access of gas to replenish what we knows it needs. Yet God has permitted that to be the case with man. We are in fact created depraved. Natural man is an enemy to God.
●First of all, God could not create man as naturally depraved. Both Wesley and Calvin believed the depravity of man was due to the fall and not because of a failure on God’s part in creating a defective or evil nature in man. Categorically you are wrong in regard to your interpretation of Wesley and Calvin.
●Second, all analogies fail at some point. The essential point of the car metaphor is that the car will not run without gasoline. The gasoline is a metaphor for God’s grace.
●Thirdly, the 1Cor 2:14 scripture is contrasting the man who has the Holy Spirit with the psuchikos man—the man without the spirit, or the man who is only sensate. This is why the New International Version correctly translates the verse as follows:
1Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
●Again, we see the fundamental differences between Mormonism and Christianity. The Mormon deity creates evil beings. In contrast, only good things come down from the Christian God:
James 1: 16-18 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
●Ever so briefly, the answer is: the purpose of man is to live in an intimate relationship with God—namely, to have his gas tank full.
You are left only "begging the question". Your premise is that God could not create man who He would describe as naturally depraved where all that God must create is perfect goodness. Why? Certainly where the God is perfectly good all things created must then be created for good and not even slightly depraved naturally.
Your long standing premises are as questionable as your conclusion and your premise invites another obvious question: petitio principii. It is exactly the same irrational used to demand an Earth at the center of the universe with all other objects in perfect orbit and order around her. With the curse of Adam you sit at a point of retreat a pronounced order of the universe, now straddling to extremes.
You are left only "begging the question". Your premise is that God could not create man who He would describe as naturally depraved where all that God must create is perfect goodness. Why? Certainly where the God is perfectly good all things created must then be created for good and not even slightly depraved naturally.
●First, I want you to notice that I am carefully answering all of your questions. I want you to notice this because: A) I am going to ask you a couple of questions which I would like answered intelligently; and B) I want you to see that as I answer your questions you don’t acknowledge that I have effectively dealt with your objections. What you’ve done is simply move on to other perceived problem that you can pose. For instance, I have shown you that Calvin and Wesley did not believe that God created mankind with an evil nature. I have also explained to you man’s purpose—which is to live in a loving and intimate relationship with God.
●I stated that God could not create man with an evil nature because God’s Word reveals this truth and because we can reason our way to the same conclusion. From revelation we see this truth (read James 1:16-18 which I quoted above). We also know that Jesus declared that God is “good.” We also see that it is directly stated in Genesis 1 that God created all things “good.” Therefore, from the perspective of revelation, God could not create evil things.
●From the perspective of reason we can ascertain that evil is a privation and does not have a literal substance (evil lacks positive ontological status). Therefore it is the absence of a “good.” That which is created is a “good.” If you want to know more about this, you can read Augustine’s tightly reasoned works. Essentially, God’s self-existence is the grounds for belief in evil as a privation, in that if God is the Creator than He is self-existent. Therefore, it is likely He is the only being that exists in and through Himself (per se); there would be no competing being (or thing) unless one denies this premise and asserts some sort of Manicheaistic dualism. By the way, you seem to be asserting a Manichean dualism.
●Of course, the problem for your position is this: if God gave man an evil nature, then God is responsible for man’s evil. One does not blame the baseball bat for hitting the baseball. The bat is simply the instrument of the batter.
You wrote: Your long standing premises are as questionable as your conclusion and your premise invites another obvious question: petitio principii. It is exactly the same irrational used to demand an Earth at the center of the universe with all other objects in perfect orbit and order around her. With the curse of Adam you sit at a point of retreat a pronounced order of the universe, now straddling to extremes.
●I cannot follow your logic here. Nor can I figure out what your last sentence means.
●By the way, you apparently do not know much about the Copernican revolution and the actual history of Galileo. There were actually very good evidential reasons for positing that the Sun revolved around the earth. One of those reasons was that Earth-centered calculations actually worked for predicting the calendar and travel. It wasn’t until fifty years after Galileo that instruments allowed the ascertainment of enough evidence to affirm a heliocentric solar-system. For example, one of Galileo’s “evidences” for a heliocentric solar-system was that tides were evidence of the “sloshing” of the waters caused by the rotation of the earth.
●Now your questions:
1. Explain how it can be that A) God created man with an evil nature which (in your own words) resists doing good; and B) God is not responsible for the evil man does.
2. Explain how it can be that A) God creates evil things; and B) God is not therefore evil.
You will remember I wrote in part the following paragraph:
You are left only "begging the question". Your premise is that God could not create man who He would describe as naturally depraved where all that God must create is perfect goodness. Why? Certainly where the God is perfectly good all things created must then be created for good and not even slightly depraved naturally.
The fact that Calvin and Wesley did not attribute that which was Evil to God is a strawman. I agree with that statement and that sentiment. I was not speaking to evil and you know it. I have been speaking to that which is not good or depraved, the terms not being synonyms with evil. So although you want me to acknowledge your response, it was not a response in good faith but rather in the use of weasel words. In religion especially, that which is "not good" or "depraved" is not necessarily evil. I would be wise enough to make the distinction for you when writing.
Although God would certainly declare the state of man generally as not good today, He would not characterize them, on the whole, to be evil. But that is my opinion.
Returning to MY point, as opposed to your weasel words... God declaring all of creation good doesn't mean perfectly good. I believe a more accurate description of His Feelings on the matter is man was created as intended, even integrated good enough, as planned. Certainly He made man with fatal flaws, that without regular help from God, he would self destruct. Even with a regular spiritual assist from our Maker we remain utterly depraved in EVERY case. Thus, from man's perspective, he could have been made better, more good. We see this clearly in the natures of man.
You say that the created man can unravel God's truth and "we can reason ourselves to the same conclusion." But you statement proves my point. We can only gain spiritual truths through the spirit.
But Paul has provided a witness that indicates that in spite of he knowing the truth, he does not always act in accord with it....that he is depraved. This provides dependable evidence that the created man is not in any case able to avoid being depraved. He is in every case flawed in not only consistantly acting on what has been confirmed to be true but for some with best effort will not find a dependable truth.
"●By the way, you apparently do not know much about the Copernican revolution and the actual history of Galileo. There were actually very good evidential reasons for positing that the Sun revolved around the earth."
You cannot help but insult, can you. As I understood it Galileo was strongly persuaded to planet order dictated by the Church. As with the Bible there is very good evidence allowing the reader to personally interpret and be wrong.
"1. Explain how it can be that A) God created man with an evil nature which (in your own words) resists doing good; and B) God is not responsible for the evil man does.
2. Explain how it can be that A) God creates evil things; and B) God is not therefore evil."
Perhaps you would like to extract the weasel words from your questions and rewrite them. I look forward to seeing them.
It has been a crazy busy weekend but well worth it. We went to youth convention and had an incredible time. I got a bit under an hour of sleep but God is good and I still had more energy than all but one of my youth. The one with more energy than me was my sister. We had youth night last night in the main sanctuary. This is a great time where I get to share my vision with the congregation and let them experience some of the things we do in youth including the games (walking on gold fish using real fish ... which are substituted after blindfolds are in place with mandarin oranges ...), small groups, and the youth worship band. We had a wonderful altar service and I really hope and pray that lives are being changed through this weekend.
To Gecko,
You simply refuse to answer questions when they are put to you despite others answering your own loaded questions. Anyways, I like that you are trying to say that creating man incapable of having a relationship with God is not creating man evil. I guess that it ultimately depends on your definition of evil then. Working from Christian theology evil is that which is not good and having a relationship with God is the best good man will achieve since it is the fullest purpose of man, then creating man incapable of having this relationship, of fulfilling the ultimate purpose of man, is creating man to be inherently evil.
Of course, this has been explained to you over and over and over yet you refuse to bother learning what we believe instead leaning on your own feigned ignorance and prejudice to make a point.
The fact that Calvin and Wesley did not attribute that which was Evil to God is a strawman.
●I don’t have a lot of time right now to respond; however, this caught my eye and encapsulates so much of the frustration many of us have in trying to have an intellectually honest dialogue with you, Gecko.
●The “fact that Calvin and Wesley did not attribute that which is evil to God” is absolutely and emphatically not a straw-man argument. Why? Well, simply because you brought it up! How ridiculous can you get? I was merely responding to your assertion that they believed that God created man with an evil nature—which is not true!!! You were wrong and now instead of admitting it, you say that I brought this topic up as a “strawman” argument. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty. How stupid do you think I am? I would have never brought the subject up because it is wrong to begin with. It is wrong to say that Calvin and Wesley attributed to God the creation of an evil nature in mankind. However, you—and you alone—asserted this.
●Agreed, you are using “weasel words.” To say that something is “not good” or “depraved” and, yet, is “not necessarily evil” is a clear case of using “weasel words.” As usual, you are attempting to dodge my questions. Okay, answer this:
How can it be that God created all things “very good” and, yet, there can exist things that are “not good” or “depraved?” Who created the “not good” or “depraved” things?
How can it be that God created man and said that he was “good” and, yet, man has a “not good” nature or a “depraved” nature?
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
You wrote: Returning to MY point, as opposed to your weasel words... God declaring all of creation good doesn't mean perfectly good. I believe a more accurate description of His Feelings on the matter is man was created as intended, even integrated good enough, as planned. Certainly He made man with fatal flaws, that without regular help from God, he would self destruct.
●Hmmm…interesting, I speak of “good” and “evil” and you speak of God somehow creating man as sort-of good but having fatal flaws and being “not good” and “depraved” in his nature and, yet, you claim I am using “weasel words.” Wow, you have truly amazing chutzpah!
●Okay, how can the Bible say that God created all things “very good” and, yet , in Gecko-think this means that God “made man with fatal flaws?” Are you aware that this is called “double-speak?”
●Read this and answer the following:
James 1:16-18 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
●How can James directly state that every “good…and every perfect gift” comes from God and, yet, man’s nature--as a gift from God--is not “perfectly good” and has “fatal flaws.”
You wrote: You cannot help but insult, can you. As I understood it Galileo was strongly persuaded to planet order dictated by the Church. As with the Bible there is very good evidence allowing the reader to personally interpret and be wrong.
●I was not insulting you; I was simply stating a fact. You do not demonstrate an understanding of the issues surrounding Galileo. Others have tried to point this out to you.
You wrote: (Quoting me) "1. Explain how it can be that A) God created man with an evil nature which (in your own words) resists doing good; and B) God is not responsible for the evil man does.
2. Explain how it can be that A) God creates evil things; and B) God is not therefore evil."
(Your response) Perhaps you would like to extract the weasel words from your questions and rewrite them. I look forward to seeing them.
●How about this…I’ll use your own words…
1. Explain how it can be that A) “man was created by God with a naturally depraved state of not desiring His counsel and direction even resenting it” and B) God is not responsible for the evil man does.
2. Explain how it can be that A) God creates depraved things; and B) God is not therefore depraved?
3. Explain how it can be that A) God created man’s nature not “perfectly good”; and B) James says that “every perfect gift” comes from God.
4. Explain how it can be that A) God creates beings who—because of the nature that He gave them—refuse to do His will and do not even desire “His counsel and direction even resenting it" and, yet, B) God is not responsible for the evil things those beings do.
Depraved: adjective (1) immoral, perverse, perverted, reprobate: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; “depraved criminals”, “a perverted sense of loyalty”; “the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat” (2) unreformable, unregenerate: hopelessly bad; “an unregenerate criminal” (3) evil, vicious: having the nature of vice. (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/depraved)
Gecko wrote: Perhaps you would like to extract the weasel words…
I made no characterization of anything EVIL anywhere in this Topic.
In your characterizations of EVIL you create a strawman in departing from my meaning; then when I call you on it now TWICE you don't have time to read it. But you grab a sentence of what I have written and appear an idiot in your retort.
However Thom, you are not an idiot. You are just a proud man who often when beaten, distorts and runs away. Busy Bee. Intellectual honesty, right.
I certainly can appreciate your lack of time. I have just as little of it as you. Perhaps a blog is too large a responsibility for you. Why not offload it to a junior pastor who can regularly and effectively read, think, and write. I'm sure you have someone on staff, perhaps he or she works with the youth - young men and women -who are open to individual differences between the race of men...who understand the full breadth of Christianity. The fact that your youth programming is so effective indicates OPEN minds in that sector of your ministry. Just a thought.
So, cornered again, you advise Thom to quit writing altogether? Ha!
The whole rant prefaced by "I did not use the Word Evil. Evil is not what I am talking about."
Just prior to that, you said, "In religion especially, that which is "not good" or "depraved" is not necessarily evil. I would be wise enough to make the distinction for you when writing."
I beg....BEG you to explain the difference between depraved and evil. What unique dictionary do you use? I beg you to be "wise enough to make the distinction in writing", here. Please? Because I read the definition of depraved and, well......sorry, but in english, they are synonyms. Words have meanings.
You are something.
It's cool that you have such insight into God's "feelings on the matter" but I would argue that, besides being scriptural as pointed out, the precise, mathematical, nature of the universe, the earth, life on earth and human biology all represent substantial evidence that God did not create man with "fatal flaws" in this area when everything else perfectly conspires to make our existence possible, in a way that truly makes us free.
The idea that God kind of threw man's nature together and said, "good enough, as planned" is.....unique. Sounds a little haphazard. And it still begs the question;
"Explain how it can be that A) God creates depraved things; and B) God is not therefore depraved?".... to use your own terminology.
Your argument as stated needs to have these apparent contradictions explained or your premise must fail.
I did not use the Word Evil. Evil is not what I am talking about.
I made no characterization of anything EVIL anywhere in this Topic.
In your characterizations of EVIL you create a strawman in departing from my meaning; then when I call you on it now TWICE you don't have time to read it. But you grab a sentence of what I have written and appear an idiot in your retort.
However Thom, you are not an idiot. You are just a proud man who often when beaten, distorts and runs away. Busy Bee. Intellectual honesty, right.
●Okay, so now you assert that the “meaning” of your words was not to be understood as characterizing “anything evil.” Hmm…well, let’s read Gecko’s words again:
Gecko-words
Both Wesley and Calvin knew that man was created by God with a naturally depraved state of not desiring His counsel and direction even resenting it.
●To this Gecko-words-assertion I countered that neither Wesley or Calvin held that man was created by God in a “naturally depraved state” or a state of evil. Evil is defined as follows by Webster:
1 a: morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
●But, Gecko now responds by saying, I did not mean “evil.” Gecko writes that man is created “depraved” but “depraved” does not mean evil in “religious” terms. Yet, Gecko writes the following:
We are in fact created depraved. Natural man is an enemy to God.
●Okay, so now we are to believe that Gecko does not “mean” that “depraved” should be understood as being evil or sinful. However, Gecko writes here (just above) that the “Natural man is an enemy of God.” Yes, I know, we are all scratching our heads and wondering how it is possible for man to be created “depraved” and created as “an enemy of God” and, yet, not be evil or sinful.
●However, he adds more:
People are not by nature inclined to love God (underlining by Gecko) with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose (boldface by Gecko) to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures.
●Okay, so now we are to believe that man can be created by God with the following and not be in any way a reference to “evil:”
1. By nature not inclined to love God.
2. Inclined by their created nature to serve their own interests.
3. Inclined by their created nature to “reject the rule of God.”
4. Inclined by their created nature to be unable to morally choose to follow God.
5. Out of the “necessity of their own natures” be unwilling to follow God.
●But none of this “means” or implies “evil” in any way. This, of course, is despite the standard dictionary definition of the word “depraved.” This is despite the standard dictionary definition of the word “evil.” And this is despite the standard meaning of the word sinful or “evil” as described in the Bible as rebellion and rejection of God’s will and way.
●If you are willing to accept this from Gecko, I would love to talk with you about some swamp land for sale in Florida.
I am waiting for you to answer my new questions that have had all “weasel” words removed. Tick, tock, tick, tock…
I see no corrections. Would you care to actually write them?
Thom:
I see no corrections. Would you care to actually write them?
Notice to the reader:
●As I indicated to Gecko above, I carefully and steadfastly have answered a slew of his questions and dealt effectively with all of his objections or assertions. You will also notice that I stated the following to Gecko, Monday April 28, 2008 @ 10:20 AM:
First, I want you to notice that I am carefully answering all of your questions. I want you to notice this because: A) I am going to ask you a couple of questions which I would like answered intelligently; and B) I want you to see that as I answer your questions you don’t acknowledge that I have effectively dealt with your objections.
●As I have predicted over and over, Gecko, will not answer (more specifically, cannot answer) the clearest and simplest question regarding his incoherent assertions no matter how they are phrased—including phrasing questions using his own words. The reason Gecko cannot do this is because…well…his assertions are…ah…incoherent—they literally do not make sense.
Summary of Gecko’s incoherent position: Gecko cannot coherently assert that God created man with a “depraved” nature that “by nature does not love God;” is “inclined to reject God’s will;” and by “the necessity of” its own created nature is “unwilling to follow God” and “whose faculties are unable to choose to follow God” (“out of the necessity of their own natures”) and, yet, at the same time assert that man’s nature is not evil and that Gecho's view avoids making God responsbile for man's depraved actions. This is pure balderdash. If God created man with a depraved nature then man’s depraved actions track directly back to God. If General Electric manufactures a defective light bulb we don’t blame the light bulb. We demand that General Electric recall the defective light bulb…duh.
●This is why Gecko refuses to answer any of my questions.
I beg....BEG you to explain the difference between depraved and evil. What unique dictionary do you use? I beg you to be "wise enough to make the distinction in writing", here. Please? Because I read the definition of depraved and, well......sorry, but in english, they are synonyms. Words have meanings.
●Timbo, I hope you are not holding your breath awaiting Gecko’s response.
Thom:
I see no corrections. Would you care to actually write them?
●Perhaps if they were in Braille it would help.
It should be noted that in debates and other intelligent discussions, if a person is to use a term in a way that departs from the traditional definition they should define those terms so that confusion is not created. In this case three different people have used three different routes to prove that the terms you use are synonymous with "evil" and still you say we are simply misconstruing your statements by defining your own terms for you in a way you didn't intend.
OK, let’s assume that you made a mistake and used the wrong words; maybe you would like to rephrase what you have said thus admitting you were initially wrong so that we can move forward?
On a side note let me try and explain the concept of defining terms, which I know to be very difficulty on you. You use a lot of the same words we use but do not define them for us. This results in great confusion. Words like "Salvation" have a very different meaning in the Christian world and the LDS world. It is important for us to know how you mean to use these words.
A great example would be in answering the question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This really depends on how one defines sound which is usually dependent on a person’s background. Let's say a person deals with hearing on a regular basis and so defines sound as movement on the ear drum that is transmitted through various structures to the cochlea and then transmitted to the brain for interpretation. For such a person sound can be interrupted in many ways including nerve damage and brain damage. Those two mean that sound, for this person, is not tied to physical vibration and so a tree can fall but not result in sound if the brain does not interpret that sound. On the other had we might have someone that deals with physics and the properties of sound waves, say a sound technician. Now this person understands that people hear sound, but their thoughts regarding sound are all about physical vibrations. Sound can be felt as much as heard in their world. In their sound systems any vibrations, including interference from electrical signals, is sound and must be controlled. To such a person, even if the sound is not heard it is still sound because vibrations are created that can ultimately result in something being heard.
Now these two people would argue forever without coming to any agreement if they do not define their terms.
Gecko, the problem is, on a Christian theology blog we are all coming from one set of definitions that we have spent our lives knowing so we can discuss these terms and know what we each mean. Then you come along and use the same terms but mean something different and are surprised when we assign your terms the definitions that most of the world would use. We even use common sources and simple reason to show where we get our definitions from but you simply refuse to share with us something as simple as how you would define a term.
Give us a break ... seriously.
Reading it should give you all the intellectual honesty that you desire.
Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of Original Sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, as God requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God…Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible…God overcomes man's inability with his divine grace and enables men and women to choose to follow him, though the precise means of this overcoming varies between the theological systems.
●Notice the very first sentence of the definition; total depravity is understood within Christian doctrine to be the result of Original Sin and not the result of God’s good creation. Implicit in this doctrine is that, without God’s intervening grace, mankind would be damned. In other words, man’s depravity (from the fall) results in man’s depraved actions for which he would be an “object of God’s wrath” (Eph. 2) without God’s saving grace. Hence, we are back to exactly what I pointed out to you before.
This understanding of man’s depravity does two things: 1) it protects God from the blame for man’s sin; and 2) it clearly indicates that man cannot save himself.
Your formulation of man’s depravity (as much as anyone can figure out what your formulation is) puts the blame for man’s sin squarely on God for creating a defective (depraved) being. This is unavoidable. Likewise, your formulation also seems to hint that man can somehow merit God’s grace. Christian doctrine opposes both of these ideas.
You claimed man was created in this state, please read the article yourself. This is at the very beginningPlease note that this is a consequence of the fall which ushered sin and evil into the world. The article does not need to mention evil because depraved is a synonym for evil. This is common knowledge and so isn't a required defined term unless you are using the term differently.
Still, you dodge the questions put to you despite all of your own questions and objections being clearly answered and the questions being reformed using your own words instead of "weasel" words unless you are willing to admit your own words were "weasel" words.
Among other things, I can only wonder who really "sit[s] at a point of retreat a pronounced order of the universe, now straddling to extremes"?
Whatever that means.
●Of course, the Mormon system of salvation is way different than that which is found in Christianity. Though using similar words, Mormonism propagates the notion that the Holy Spirit is not given to a person until after they have “placed their faith in Jesus Christ,” “repented”, and been “confirmed as members of the Church.”
Gospel Principles “The Gift of the Holy Spirit” states: The gift of the Holy Ghost is the privilege, given to people who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ, been baptized, and been confirmed as members of the Church, to receive guidance and inspiration from the Holy Ghost.
●In fact, Mormonism teaches that one must become “worthy” to gain the “help of the Holy Ghost” by “earnestly” obeying the “commandments of God.”
Again, the Gospel Principles states: To be worthy to have the help of the Holy Ghost, we must seek earnestly to obey the commandments of God. We must keep our thoughts and actions pure. President David O. McKay said: "One chief purpose of life is to overcome evil tendencies, to govern our appetites, to control our passions--anger, hatred, jealousy, immorality. We have to overcome them; we have to subject them, conquer them because God has said: '. . . the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples--' (Helaman 4:24), nor will it '. . . always strive with man' (2 Nephi 26:11)" ("Emotional Maturity," Instructor, Sept. 1959, p. 281).
●Christianity teaches that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to draw men to Christ so that they might repent and believe in the Lord. Without the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit to empower faith, repentance and obedience, no man could be saved. If men had to “earnestly” be obedient to “the commandments of God” in order to “gain the help of the Holy Ghost”, then, no man would be saved—period. The Mormon system and the Christian view of salvation could not be more diametrically opposed to each other.
- Augustine
Sermons 214.2
I’m wondering if you have noticed the inconsistency in your doctrine regarding man’s depravity. I am sure you oppose the Christian view of the fall and man’s depravity, but, you must admit that there is a consistent logic to it. However, you must notice that these two doctrines do not fit well together:
1. Man is created with a nature that is depraved and naturally rebellious against God’s counsel and will and “unable to morally choose to follow God.”
2. According to LDS doctrine one must be obedient to God’s commands to receive the Holy Ghost (after having faith in Christ, repenting of one’s sins and entering into church membership).
Because of personal choices, everyone also experiences the effects of sin (see 1 John 1:8–10; Mosiah 16:4). These effects are called spiritual death. No one can return to the presence of God without divine grace. Through the Atonement, we all can be forgiven of our sins; we can become clean before God. To receive this enabling power, we must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives (see Ephesians 2:8–9; James 2:17–22; 2 Nephi 25:23; 31:20). (lds.org, Gospel Library, Gospel Topics: Grace)
●In my view, the LDS doctrine of grace is not only self-defeating and contradictory, it is far more humanistic than Pelagianism.
As I thought about it, the LDS doctrine of grace—while not making sense from a Christian perspective—does have some logic from a Mormon perspective. When I remember that Mormons see themselves as “spirit children” on a temporary mortal journey to godhood, then it makes sense that it must be a highly self-fulfilling activity with a “little help from (their) friends.” Mormonism is the ultimate meritocracy.
The unfortunate thing is that the LDS uses Christian terminology to communicate its theology. In doing so, they attempt to make these terms communicate a message that is wholly the opposite of what is meant by the Christian doctrine of God’s grace. Sadly, many people are deceived by the Mormon use of Christian terminology. They are deceived into continuing their quest to be what Satan suggested to Adam and Eve so long ago—“you will be like God.”
I have always been intrigued by this verse: Acts 5:32: 'We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.'
This verse would seem to suggest that the giving of the Holy Spirit is conditional to obedience. Some commentators suggest that 'obey' refers to the 'the obedience of the Gospel", e.g. repentance and baptism (F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, p. 122), while others suggest that 'it is the Spirit's indwelling those who obey God, so that their witness is characterized by boldness and convincing conviction' (William J. Larkin, Jr., Acts, p. 95).
I am of the latter opinion. God's doesn't give his Holy Spirit for our spiritual jollies or spiritual excitement. God gives his Spirit for ministry. Quite frankly, if believers aren't interested in following God and doing his pleasure why should God waste his Spirit on them. I think the reason the church in America is so weak and ineffective is that she really isn't interested in obeying the commands of Christ. As one of my mentors used to say, "God's commandments are his enablements." When we step up the plate and declare that we are ready to do the will of the Father, the Father will give us the Spirit to do his Will, however, humanly difficult it may appear to do. After all if you can do the Will of the Father on your own, you get to claim the glory. However, if you avail yourself of the Spirit which raised Jesus from the dead, you will humbly give the Father all the glory!
I am of the latter opinion. God's doesn't give his Holy Spirit for our spiritual jollies or spiritual excitement. God gives his Spirit for ministry. Quite frankly, if believers aren't interested in following God and doing his pleasure why should God waste his Spirit on them. I think the reason the church in America is so weak and ineffective is that she really isn't interested in obeying the commands of Christ. As one of my mentors used to say, "God's commandments are his enablements." When we step up the plate and declare that we are ready to do the will of the Father, the Father will give us the Spirit to do his Will, however, humanly difficult it may appear to do. After all if you can do the Will of the Father on your own, you get to claim the glory. However, if you avail yourself of the Spirit which raised Jesus from the dead, you will humbly give the Father all the glory!
●On a practical or functional level I am in great agreement with you. I think you have really honed in on the OT approach to the work of the Holy Spirit—enablement and not entertainment. This OT approach, of course, continues right into the NT which is seen in great detail through the Luke-Acts emphasis on the Spirit’s empowerment for ministry (Luke 4:18—“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor”). In fact, I frequently tell my congregation that Christians don’t need much of the Holy Spirit if they are not doing much for the Lord. Why bother?
On the other hand, when we reflect from a soteriological perspective, regeneration must be the work of the Holy Spirit for all Christians regardless of their engagement in ministry. This is the ontological aspect and not the functional aspect of Pneumatology. I think the LDS has mixed these aspects up in order to propagate a man-centered theology.
Thank you for your response. I think we agree on this one.
Just to note, my good friend and fellow student, Roger Stronstad wrote a book titled, The Charismatic Theology of Luke-Acts. It is quite a good book, unfortunately, never once does he mention Acts 5:32. I have pointed out his failure to him.
I view the indwelling and activity of the Holy Spirit as reflected in what have traditionally been labeled the "gifts" and "fruits" of the Holy Spirit. Some of these focus on the benefit and growth of the individual, while others focus on the community. It's an intimate connection with the two great commandments...the love of God and love of neighbor, with the Holy Spirit most associated with God's love poured out.
●This is really and excellent way of describing the Holy Spirit’s work. By the way, John, what is the general approach in the Catholic Church regarding the more “charismatic” gifts such as tongues, prophesy and healing?
"Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of Original Sin."
Let's be intellectually honest.
In response to Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit, God created many new realities: painful childbirth for one, weeds for another. To suppose that some doctrine did it is gross error.
God created it. He created all things. The extent of the torment both men and women feel is a consequence of our interaction with His creation. Sometimes God's created world is not to all of our advantage. That is, to some of us it is NOT GOOD in those terms. To the extent that it serves the purpose it was created to perform, it is certainly good.
Now moving to your mixed up doctrine: No matter our attitude, we are depraved. No matter how saved we are, we are depraved... not because of our complaining or willful sinning according to your Fall of Adam, (but because of THEIR sin) and only because we breath. Death is perhaps the only exit from feeling depraved according to your doctrine.
According to your doctrine in accepting Christ as our Saviour, our depraved state becomes that much more pronounced and real, where it doesn't make any sense at all.
If I am depraved and remain depraved, it is because of my actions alone. I suggest you get a handle on it, drop this corrupted notion. And as you do that reevaluate other gospel principles more closely.
This is why I reject your version of the Apple. You frame the whole thing as a profound punishment and not administered by God (when it really has to be administered by Him).
You're following an irrational path.
Let's be intellectually honest.
In response to Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit, God created many new realities: painful childbirth for one, weeds for another. To suppose that some doctrine did it is gross error.
●Who in the world asked you to respond to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit? No one! This is a complete Red Herring designed to avoid answering the specific questions posed to you using your precise wording. Get real.
You wrote: God created it. He created all things. The extent of the torment both men and women feel is a consequence of our interaction with His creation. Sometimes God's created world is not to all of our advantage. That is, to some of us it is NOT GOOD in those terms. To the extent that it serves the purpose it was created to perform, it is certainly good.
●This is not even in the same ballpark with any question asked of you. Remember, Gecko, it is we who believe in the fall. On the contrary, it is you Gecko, who asserted that man is created morally depraved by God: unwilling and unable to do God’s will and counsel. Therefore, you have to explain how God could create man morally depraved before the fall and, yet, (1) man can be responsible for his actions and (2) God is not responsible for man’s depraved actions.
You wrote: Now moving to your mixed up doctrine: No matter our attitude, we are depraved. No matter how saved we are, we are depraved... not because of our complaining or willful sinning according to your Fall of Adam, (but because of THEIR sin) and only because we breath. Death is perhaps the only exit from feeling depraved according to your doctrine.
●Perhaps someone can explain what Gecko’s turgid prose mean. I cannot make any sense out of this statement.
Gecko wrote: According to your doctrine in accepting Christ as our Saviour, our depraved state becomes that much more pronounced and real, where it doesn't make any sense at all.
●While I can read these words I cannot for the life of me follow the reasoning behind them. Never in my life have I heard anyone claim such a thing--that the Christian view of salvation which moves people from moral depravity to a new life in Christ makes people more depraved.
Gecko wrote: If I am depraved and remain depraved, it is because of my actions alone. I suggest you get a handle on it, drop this corrupted notion. And as you do that reevaluate other gospel principles more closely.
●Well, yes, certainly we are very aware that this is the man-centered view of the Mormon religion. From the LDS perspective, man must save himself.
Gecko wrote: This is why I reject your version of the Apple. You frame the whole thing as a profound punishment and not administered by God (when it really has to be administered by Him).
●I think what you meant to say is that in the Mormon religion God plans evil. And you like that.
You err. The Fall occurred as stated in the scriptures. Literally. Protesstants disagree on that. The LDS believe in the Fall. And I and the LDS certainly believe in Man's depravity. If you read what I have written you wouldn't be so sure about something that you haven't read.
●So, are you now saying that you do not oppose the Christian view of the fall and man’s depravity? Yahoo! Yeah, Gecko agrees with the Christian view of the fall. Yeah, Gecko agrees with the Christian view of the total depravity of man due to the fall! I can hardly believe my eyes! Gecko agrees with me! So, we have it on record that Gecko rejects the LDS notion that God planned the fall of man so that man could have children and progress on to godhood. We have it on record that Gecko agrees with the orthodox Christian view that man cannot save himself because he is in a completely fallen state. Gecko agrees that man cannot merit by any means God’s grace and that God’s grace is given to man as a gift and not earned by good works! Hallelujah! Let’s all sing Amazing Grace together. Gecko does not oppose the Christian view of the fall and man’s depravity.
Thom, I know it is of special interest in telling me what my Church believes and thus what I believe....in the face of my denial of both.
Now you are taking a new tact. You are telling me what my words here really mean in conflict with my attempt at exclamation. First, I am fascinated as to how this can be done with the frequency under which you report being confused at my writing?
You begin by stating that I believe man is created morally depraved. Of all the Churches on the Earth we stand alone in denial of this statement. Children do not sin. They are not accountable.
Knowing the futility in repeating myself, I can only "suggest" that you read my earlier explanations.
Now you are taking a new tact. You are telling me what my words here really mean in conflict with my attempt at exclamation. First, I am fascinated as to how this can be done with the frequency under which you report being confused at my writing?
●Yes, I know you cannot answer the questions. But, remember, you are the one that has insisted that man is created by God “depraved” etc. Do I have to go back in paste in your comments again to prove this?