I am honored to have James White, a well known Christian apologist and Reformed theologian, answer a question I submitted to him on his radio broadcast. Here is a link to the recording, and he answers my question starting at 18:43. (18 min and 33 seconds).
As I was reading Matthew, I came across this in 11:20-23:
20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."
Those of you who read my blog on a regular basis know that I am Reformed in my theology, and have been so since 2002. I believe that the whole counsel of Scripture supports the Calvinist position, and I have heard few credible arguments against it--and no "unanswerable" ones.
However, there are times that I come across verses that seem to support the opposing position. The first "point" of Calvinism is Total Depravity, which describes humankind as completely fallen and depraved in nature. His inclination is always toward sin and rebellion, and because of this nature, man has not the ability to choose God on his own. Left to his own devices and given a choice between himself, an idol, or God, God would never be his choice.
I noticed that an implication could be drawn from the passage above that undermine the doctrine of Total Depravity. So I sent James White this email:
As a Calvinist, I have a question about Matthew 11:23..[Citation of the Verse]...and its implication on Reformed Theology, particularly Total Depravity. I've heard Reformed preachers say that it shows that God does not intend for all to be saved, which I agree with, I see that it demonstrates that God chose not to show them such mighty works and not give them the opportunity to repent.
However, if an opponent of Reformed theology were to use this verse in connection to Total Depravity--not necessarily God's election--and argue the verse in this manner:
"This verse implies that man is not totally depraved, for Jesus even said that if the people of Sodom would have seen his works, they would have believed--implying that they have the ability to believe."
How would you respond?
I haven't personally recieved this objection, but I as I was reading this verse, I noticed that it could be taken in such a way.
Thanks.
Brent Railey, Baton Rouge, LA
Dr. White's response was quite lengthy, about 7 minutes, and it was quite good. It was the approach I would have taken with my deficient ability to analyze the Greek, and the approach is called the Analogy of Faith--let Scripture interpret Scripture. No Scripture should ever be interpreted in isolation to a point that it is contrary to the general teaching of the Bible. Essentially, the opponent has tried to unpack the assumptions behind Jesus' words, and has not done a good job of it.
I know that there aren't cookie cutter answers for every Arminian verse in the Bible, and I wasn't looking for one. I only wanted to see if I was overlooking something obvoius in the text. The overall concern of the text is the proclamation of judgment. Christ makes a comparison of the Jewish cities to those of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and Christ deemed it important to tell them that those cities would have repented had they seen Christ's works. Hence, because the Jews were more hardened, they face harsher judgment.
The works of Christ are not the works of a mere man--they are the work of God. Christ said that it would have taken a work of God to penetrate the hearts of those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and cause them to repent. Without them, they obviously didn't repent. Hence, there is no implied ability in this text, or else Christ would have said "some did believe all on their own." In fact, there is an equal, if not a heavier, implication that it would have required a work on God's part to cause those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repent.
Even if the above implication [that man has the ability to repent] were true, the opposing postion has not gained any ground on this passage. If God intends and desires all to be saved, why didn't God show Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom his mighty works?
5 comments:
That’s great! Dr. White is a very intelligent man; his website has been very helpful.
Thanks Chris.
When I drew a second implication from the text (that men will not repent apart from the works of God), I forgot to mention that the text does not validate either "implication." In order to firgure out which one is correct, one must consult the rest of the Scripture--which overwhelmingly confirms Total Depravity in explicit terms.
I am completely thrown back at how many people do not believe in man's total depravity...good post Brent.
I am too, scribe. It seems to me that this is the first doctrine a sinner must accept in the conversion process. One must understand his depravity to know his need for grace...
...So it also amazes me that people will go through great lengths to reinterpret God's Word in order to deny a cornerstone of the gospel message.
Brent, I believe your candid understanding of the implication of Christ's statement in Matthew 11.23ff is valid and consistent with many other Scriptures.
If one approaches Scripture without a predisposition towards the "Reformed spin" on Scripture; one could just as readily find Scriptures that will adequately support your initial candid understanding of Christ's implications in that text.
I would suggest the root of the question goes to how we Biblically define "total depravity"; is it, in fact, the same as "total inability"?
Post a Comment