Russell:

unless we limit depravity to soteriology we have no way of explaining the humanist good actions unless we twist our minds by saying that charity done by Ted Turner really isn’t charity because he doesn’t believe the right things.

As far as I can determine, it’s not inconsistent to hold to radical pervasive depravity (that is, that the Fall effects every part of a person, and taints them in such a way that no thought or deed coming from their own will can be considered “righteous” in God’s eyes) and common grace (that is, that God extends grace to men not only soteriologically, but existentially.) God both willingly suspends His judgment of the world for a time, but He does not absent Himself from the world. To do the later would be to turn the world into Hell.

On the other hand, Mr. Turner’s charity, while it may providentially be used to the glory of God and temporally be used to relieve the suffering of some, isn’t good in the sense that it has any virtue to earn God’s favor and allow Ted to escape judgment.

I am waiting for the next fad. RW has been around for a while. Jabez prayers have gone silent. Maybe we need a “God saves good people” or “Success suggests sanctification” book/video/DVD/CD/mp3/website.

Big Fish came out on DVD.

People! you have tocheck this out, it has changed my life (JN)

Let’s roll it back a little. Russell said:

The purpose of the American experiment is to show that people are inherently responsible for themselves, and capable of self-government, rather than requiring a maximum of external government control in order to function.

I think there’s more than a few problems with this, because I don’t think the founders had totally committed themselves to optimistic humanism. As I read the writings of Jefferson, I see a little of this sentiment coming out, but Madison, Franklin, Adams and most of the others I’ve read were motivated more by an awareness of how the fall affects those governing the people than they were by a faith in the ability of the people to govern themselves. The Declaration of Independence, for example, isn’t a document that expounds the virtue of self-determination so much as it is a litany of the sins committed by the British king against the colonists. When the Constitution was written, it wasn’t a blind faith in the capacity of man for self-governance that drove those who wished to separate powers and limit the scope of federal authority, but rather a fear of creeping tyranny by a centralized leadership – something the founders had experienced first hand.

There’s plenty of evidence to back this up. Washington, Jefferson and Adams all at various times said that the success of the American experiment depended largely on the preservation of societal virtues that were of a religious nature (and founded squarely on Christian principles, I might add) by the people being governed. They may have had various degrees of faith that the people were capable of doing that (Jefferson had more, which explains his embrace of the French revolution; Adams had decidedly less, which may owe at least in part to his upbringing in the more Calvinist environment of New England,) but none of them believed completely in the innate ability of individual men to self-govern; that ability was a virtue bestowed on a man by education, religion, and societal pressures.

Friendly Piece of Advice: From me to all of you…

Suggesting to a fan of Rick Warren that the best possible use of his materials is for preforation and rolling for emergency usage in case of a lack of Charmin is probably NOT the best way to win friends and influence people…

I suggested the same on a message board. To date, the replies include:

“stating that a book is only good for fecal cleanup is insulting to the book, insulting to the author, and insulting to anybody who enjoyed it. “

Well DUH.

Saying crude things like that makes a terrible impression not only to people who support Rick Warren, but also any lost person who sees it and thinks Christians are all a bunch of mean hypocrits.

I wonder if misspelling “hypocrite” give a terrible impression of Christians to English teachers?

if you think “king of the hill” style debate and moderation is the best, then by all means continue. but it isn’t condusive to positive or open or friendly discussion, and it doesn’t come off as polite or Christ-like to anybody reading.

I wonder how polite he would consider it if I told a Buddhist they were headed to hell?

And it goes on like this for a page and a half. How dare I offend RW. How dare I imply that his work may be crap. Ironically… or perhaps, sadly, I got the same reaction for calling Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch “heretics”.

Russell/Kent: I wouldn’t necessarily say that the American experiment is focused ont he idea that people are capable of self-government, but rather than anything else is bad. That is, people have shown that they must be governed, and rather than trust anyone else to do it, like a king, we’ll take turns. The first way of looking at it does in fact fail to take into account man’s depraved nature, while the way I’ve suggesting is subtly different enough to take it into account fully. We limit the power of government at every step within the Constitution, precisely because we don’t trust people in power, even for the short-term.

Kent: Don’t worry about Jim. He pooped all over the place when I asked for questions for J.I.Packer, then frothed at the mouth a short time later over Manning, so give him enough time and he’ll be using “dovetail” in a sentence as well.

Michael: On Socrates vs Parsely, don’t tell me that you’re equating good theology with salvation! I actually have no reason to believe that Rod Parsley isn’t saved, despite his nonsense. I have no reason to believe that Socrates was. So I would say that Parsely was closer.

I’ve been in the P/C churches for a long time (I’m being confirmed as an Episcopalian tonight), and I can tell you that the majority of people in those churches are Believers. Misguided, sure, even wacky. But as has been said over and over in here, we are not saved by perfect doctrine, but by the Grace of God. Frankly, I don’t know what the exact percentages are, but I’d be surprised to learn that the percentage of P/C youth who “lose their faith” in college is any higher than the percentage of mainline or even (gasp!) reformed youth.

As my mom has mentioned to me (paraphrasing), “Yeah, law vs gospel, etc. I know a lot of really bratty reformed kids.” And by “kids” she means teens, usually.

Russell: Then wouldn’t we have a problem with the converse, if we limit depravity to soteriology, how do we explain the bad stuff Ted Turner does outside of issues directly relating to his salvation?

It’s possible I’ve been doing intellectual gymnastics for so long I don’t notice it anymore, but I guess the reality is that I don’t see total depravity out there. I see some pretty depraved people on both sides of the (salvation) fence, but I see good works from both sides as well. Hitler got the trains to run on time…built up the economy too. But we know that there isn’t a balance “up there” with our good works on one side and our bad on the other.

One time a (pagan) psychiatrist told me that; “most people do whatever they do in order to get their perceived needs met, if you figure out that part, you’ve got it licked.” None of us is good, but good is done by us “no-goods”, at least good from our perception. The trouble is that when you’re sitting at the bottom of the depravity well, how’re you to even know what’s good?

See, I just argued myself around in a circle…

Kurt: Loved that link, I can find out if Fido goes to heaven for only $8, I got my credit card out already…this almost made me become a dispy the other day, then I saw my wife.

If Truth = Cash Flow definately Rod Parsley. Otherwise Socrates. But what I really want to know is which of them is good.

Group: Who is closer to the truth of the Gospel: Socrates or Rod Parsley?

Kent: Pagan does not mean Occultist, as far as I am concerned.

Russell: Let me give you an example of what “proving Genesis by scientific facts” will do to you. (Or use “modernistic description” if that helps you.) I have a friend who is a serious YE creationist. The most serious one I’ve ever met. He’s totally puzzled by my rejection of what he believes proves the Bible true. He’s devoted to Kent Hovind, and is as well read and conversant on this subject as anyone I’ve ever encountered.

So one day we are having devotions, and he announces that he’s changed his view on Geness 1. I think “This is interesting.” Then he explains his change. Apparently, his previous interpretation of the second day wasn’t literal enough. In case the class has forgotten, the narrative says:

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

(Of course, the ESV is saying “expanse” where other translations say “firmament.”)

My friend said that instead of believing the early earth was covered by a water canopy, he now believed that the entire universe was covered by a water canopy.

Of course, my notion that a prescientific mind found a water canopy the best explanation for a blue sky that deposited rain, etc every so often is a rejection of any modernistic understandings of the text. Making Genesis 1 conform to scientific reality is a bandwagon I will never get on.

I just finished reading Robert Capon’s book “Genesis: The Movie.” The old rebel follows Augustine to say the seven day creation week is how it all existed in the mind of God, not how long it took to spin it all out. I would just say God choose to inspire a prescientific text that comes fully and completely from the roots of a particular ancient culture. It isn’t scientific in any way and it’s violent to try and make it scientific. It tells us God made the universe. And us. It is was very good. It’s a prescientific text with a theological purpose. In the Story/Conversation that is the “Bible,” it’s the way the story is told, so it’s the truth that matters for us. Who needs the vote of scientists or historians to verify anything about it?

I don’t want to be writing about this. I’ll stop. Please read the essays folks.

Russell: We do have recourse to take a rather unpopular (but in my view, Biblical) position concerning so-called “good deeds” performed by the reprobate.

We can simply say that these deeds may be good, in the relative sense that helping an old lady across the street is “gooder” than mugging her. BUT, in the final and ultimate sense, no deed is good unless it is done with a love for God, as well as a love for neighbor. And since the unbeliever does not love God, his deeds are not “good” in the absolute sense. This is no way “twisting” our minds; it’s simply taking the truth of fallen creation seriously. When Adam sinned, God cursed everything in Adam: we are dead creatures, and dead creatures can no more do a good work than they can save themselves.

That, and there is no biblical reason for limiting human depravity to soteriology alone. Besides, don’t postmoderns like to gently remind us that soteriology isn’t such a narrow category anyway?

Do we have any dispensationalists left here? If not, we’re gonna have to import one or two, so I can have somebody to offend. I stumbled across this linkage, thanks to reading something else on Drudge, and I thought I’d share Rapture Ready with you folks. Be sure and check out the Hal Lindsey oracle cartoon. (The artist was told to draw cartoons for Hal by God).

I run in circles which contain a lot of pagans, from nominal to dedicated to loosey goosey. I have to say I like them very much, and I prefer their company to many religious people I know. This isn’t to say I don’t LOVE those religious people. I love them with a love I can’t articulate to the pagans, and fortunately for me that is one of the few signs which gives me some comfort that I may actually be a Christian (I love all sorts of Christians, even wierd ones.) However, make me choose in a second and I’ll take a ride with one of my pagan associates over many of my Christian ones.

Kent – unless we limit depravity to soteriology we have no way of explaining the humanist good actions unless we twist our minds by saying that charity done by Ted Turner really isn’t charity because he doesn’t believe the right things.

Exo 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Am I just naieve to think “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth…” means He made heaven and earth in six days? Is it just listed here as a pattern for concept in enforcing Sabbatarianism?

Russell: I don’t believe that “fallen-ness” is limited to “soteriological matters”, Romans 8:18-25 seems to indicate that all of creation is fallen as well. I remember Michael commenting not too long ago something to the effect of (forgive me if I blow it!) “how can we expect fallen man to have perfect theology”, that made a lot of sense to me.

I see laws and limitations as necessary aspects of humans living in proximity to one another. I don’t trust my neighbors to govern themselves, I pick up too many booze bottles out of the ditch near to road to be so naive.

I agree that the US was not formed only by, nor was it intended to be, a “Christian Nation” (as if a nation can actually be redeemed). I’m more trusting of (and would rather live next door to) a rational humanist than an irrational Christian.

Michael: Concur on the Pagan vs. P/C’er thing. For the record, are we defining “pagan” as “atheist/agnositic” or believer in Wicca, etc?

Russell: The whole Bible is prescientific. That doesn’t mean every passage means the same thing. I know you aren’t going to be one of those people who treats me like I mean “a blatant untrue lie” when I say “prescientific.” :-) (JN)

And Exodus is as prescientific as Genesis. Probably written about the same time.

Does someone think if God said it then it must be scientifically true? Literary genre people. Don’t be afraid of it.

Kent R, I don’t know about you, but the Reformed views that I have read don’t consider Total Depravity to mean that we are incapable of doing Good Things™. The fallen nature is fallen specifically in how we relate to God an our salvation. This sort of goes into the same discussion of predestination and predeterminism, but I digress. It seems perfectly harmonious for the founders of this country to have in full view man’s depravity in soteriological matters, and hope for man’s abilities in self-governance.

Another thing to note is the USA wasn’t put together by Christians alone. Rational humanists, deists, and biblicists worked together for one common goal.

Alex,

An expected and well written response. I’ll probably respond to it with a blog post sometime.

Michael,

Do you think Exodus 20 is also prescientific?

Regarding Pagan vs. Bad Christianity, I wonder how many people are actually realizing the conclusion of their pagan paradigms. Francis Schaeffer’s advice seems to have gone unheeded when it comes to engaging the culture. On the other hand, a few people I spoke with at the Wilsonite church this weekend had come out of P/C/foofoo churches due to the scrappiness of the “faith” and moved into Reformed land. I didn’t stick around long enough to see how many ex-pagans were there.

Jim: Though I own and enjoy using one of these, my tool of choice for dovetails is this.

Could we substitute the word “reconcile”?

Danny: I am not trying to dodge your question at all, but I think I’ve addressed all the issues around my views on young earth creationism in my essay on the subject. I have also addressed my own approach to the Bible in general in an essay that’s driven some people on here nuts, so I am very proud of it. Please read it and join the shocked masses.

As to your specific question, I said the following in the FAQ of my creationism essay:

Question 6. Aren’t you just turning plain historical passages into symbols or allegories? Isn’t that damaging the text as you accuse creationists of doing? A good question, but not a careful one. I don’t believe Genesis is symbolic or allegorical. I believe it is prescientific. If I explain the birth of a baby to a three year old child, I speak differently than I would do a college senior. I am not lying, using symbols or allegories. I am using language appropriate for the setting. Genesis is written in language appropriate for the culture, the purpose and the setting. It wasn’t written to or by or for modern scientists.

Looking at the literary purpose of a passage does put some subjectivity on the interpreter. No doubt about it. That means even more care and caution in saying what a text is all about and how it should be read. I understand some people prefer the security of saying all texts are literal. I feel that blanket approach hurts the text and doesn’t help us understand it.

Let me be very clear. I think the young earth creationist contention that their view is the de facto obvious and simple meaning of the passage is an attempt to claim the high ground without doing any serious interpretation. Every Biblical passage has to be approached contextually and with respect for every genre. Asserting that literalism is superior to prescientific narrative is nothing more than assertion.

I live in an area where mountain preachers just open the text and start preaching, as if the middle of Ezekiel needs no literary appreciation or semi-sophisticated approach. When I look at Genesis 1-3, I do NOT see literal science. I see liturgy and story. I see prescientific theological narrative. When I look at the crucifixion, I see literal history. When I read the account of Paul’s shipwreck, again literal history. When I read Revelation 20, I read Apocalyptic code and symbolism.

IOW, I take literary genre seriously, and I don’t buy into the bullying tactics of so-called Biblical conservatives who seem to want to import modernist science into Genesis because they think that substantiates their claim that the Bible is true. Uhhh….the Bible is true if there isn’t a word of science in it. Twisting the text into something it’s not isn’t good exegesis.

Other Confused BHTers: Read my lips: Pagans are probably closer to embracing the Gospel than the majority of nutcase P/C Christians. Pentecostal/Charismatics are, by and large, on their way out of the faith into disillusionment. Pagans are quite often moving TOWARD the faith as they discover the insufficiency of their worldview. Luther said that they given the choice of having people in bad, no gospel churches, or no churches at all, he picked no churches at all. I totally agree.

Kent, here is how I dovetail things.

Russell: Had a thought about some of your words:

The purpose of the American experiment is to show that people are inherently responsible for themselves, and capable of self-government, rather than requiring a maximum of external government control in order to function.

How do we dovetail this statement/expectation with man’s fallen nature?

I don’t intend to say this in an inflamatory way. I agree with your statement but I found (during a conversation over dinner with my wife) that there seems to be an internal “disconnect” with agreeing with your statement and believing what I believe about man’s nature.

Okay Russell, you asked for it.

I couldn’t keep my mouth shut.

Since I know you are all not tired of postmodernism and its fun cousins...

Regarding Marxism and government, have alla’y’all read the Federalist Papers?

I have updated my ‘nickname’ to reflect the generous title you have bestowed upon me. I made some mean drinks in my day. I doubt I know any one who works there anymore. Lattes all around!

Russell: Then the government of the US is Marxist.

Governments are instituted among men for the purpose of guaranteeing the inalienable rights vested by our Creator, not for the purpose of the mysterious “public good.”

This is a pretty good statement of what our founding fathers believed, but Romans 13:1-7 is not explicit about “property rights”, but does allude to “public good”.

Our focus seems to be “our ownership”, what about “our stewardship”? Doesn’t being concerned with the “public good” make us good neighbors?

Uncharacteristically (especially today, I’m sure you’re thinking), I want to take issue with the “rather my kids be pagan” sentiment. On two grounds:

• First, I strongly suspect that an awful lot of those who fit the category of “Nuthouse Christianity” that Michael’s talking about are committed enough to some form of works salvation to qualify as “pagan” anyway…
• Second, isn’t it also true that to the extent that were such “Nuthouse Christianity” (hypothetically) confused by our offspring (hypothetical or otherwise) as the genuine salvation-by-grace-alone article (decidedly not hypothetical), it would (hypothetically) represent a (hypothetical) failure at some level on the part of the (perhaps hypothetical) parent of that offspring?

Not to point a finger at anyone…

Job, not Job, called and said I didn’t get the job. God is sovereign.

But I think I found more purpose now.

Matthew: You used to work at Common Grounds?! You are officially the coolest BHT member. I love that place. Just thinking about it gets me all happy.

Can’t you be an old earther and still think Noah’s Ark set sail around 6000 years ago?

Oh… I would much rather my kids be pagans than on their way to rejecting Christ because of nuthouse Christianity. Hands down. No problem.

Well put.

Michael: We’re all busy working on our parts for my forthcoming film opus, The Passion of the Bob. Those of you who know what I mean, know what I mean.

One guy who gets the grace and works business right- I think- is Jerry Bridges.

The YE Creationists can get excited again. They’re going to look for Noah’s Ark.

What if the BHT commissioned this PDL Opera? We could get out name on it and collect massive cash.

Jim’s rant is as close to a comprehensive statement of reality as I’ve ever seen. Mail it to at least ten friends, with some sort of mystical promise attached if they do the same.

So…here’s an idea. Instead of banning all smoking in bars and restaurants in Lexington, why don’t the nanny state busy bodies just let me throw out smokers if I want to? Or beat them up? Then the health conscious majority can have their eats and booze without smokers ruining their day. Really, the idea of the police showing up to arrest someone for lighting up is byond bizarre. Come home America! Weird, man. Weird.

BTW- How many times did some of you watch The Insider anyway? (JN)

Kentucky is finding several replacement crops for backy. Meth. Pot. Hemp. And Catfish ponds. Those are great imo. The Catfish ponds.

I am noting some of my co-workers apparently about to crack. I’m glad God has given me a 90% easy going temperament. And the other 10% of the time you people can all burn in hexx for all I care. (JN)

I am glad God speaks to so many of you. Could I see the hands of those who have seen a large white rabbit in the last few days?

I wonder if there is anyone great enough to set the key points of PDL into an opera of P&W songs? Is God calling some of you?

Oh…I would much rather my kids be pagans than on their way to rejecting Christ because of nuthouse Christianity. Hands down. No problem.

Asking employees to go work somewhere else is a little harder than asking diners to go eat somewhere else. It’s a lot harder to find a job than it is to find another place to get ribs. I think they should develop tobacco products that are 100% absorbed, so there’s nothing to exhale or spit. Non-smokers would be happy, smokers would get more of a chemical kick from their habit and oncology doctors would make millions. (jn)

If smoking is banned in Lexington then it is a fairly recent occurance. I worked at Common Grounds coffee shop on E. High St. for a while and it was definitely a smoking environment. Miserable. I hate to admit it, but the 2nd hand smoke gave me such bad nicotine cravings that I actually dipped Copenhagen for a spell (and violated my school’s ethos statement). Did I say it was miserable? All joking from yesterday aside, it isn’t cool to ask employees to breathe that crap 8 hours a day so I understand and agree with smoking bans from that standpoint. I have nothing else to say about smoking except that Kurt is a man in the know.

Tom: We’re not all from Kentucky, you know! Smoking has been banned in restaurants in Carrollton for a while, and is now banned in most restaurants in Dallas as well.

Defending smoking may trip someone’s political correctness trigger, but are we really supposed to moderate the topics we discuss because it doesn’t look good? Christianity itself doesn’t look good, buddy!

Anyway, smoking is essentially one minor point in the whole overall question of how intrusive, exactly, we’re going to allow government to be.

First they came for the cigarette smokers, but I didn’t speak up, because that is a nasty habit anyway…blah blah blah…Then they came for me!