Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of Total Depravity?
Cross Examination
Session: Moses:
The following is a cross-examination session
between Moses Flores and Nick Norelli concerning the doctrine of Unconditional
Election. Each of the participants met
in a private chat room and were given equal amounts of time to exchange
questions and answers.
MOSES: In John 6:37, we read "All that the Father gives Me will come
to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."
Grammatically from the text, which comes first, the "giving" or the
"coming"?
Nick: The “coming”.
MOSES: Does it
not follow that if the “giving” of the Father precedes the “coming” that one has
to first be “given” by the Father to Christ BEFORE one can “come” to Christ?
Nick: Yes.
MOSES: Does it not follow then
that the doctrine of unconditional election is true by that very admission?
Nick: Only if the "coming" in question were
"belief" -- As you know I believe this future coming refers to the
resurrection....
MOSES: In John 6:39 we read,
"this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that all He has given Me I
should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Would
you agree that the purpose of Christ is to infallibly resurrect to life, on the
last day, those who have been given (perfect tense) by the Father to
Christ?
Nick: Yes
MOSES: In John 6:44 Jesus said,
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Jesus says that the only one who may
"come to Him" are those who are drawn by the Father; and the ones who
are drawn by the Father are the same who are raised up on the last day.
Is it not the case, from the text, that only the ones drawn are the ones who
are inevitably saved and experience the resurrection unto life in the last day?
Nick: Yes... it would seem so
MOSES: Does it not logically
follow from that then that not all men are drawn by the FAther since not all
are raised up on the last day?
Nick: Yes.
MOSES: In your second response,
concerning fatalism, you asked: "Can the number of people that God
elected be altered. If the answer is NO because
God has from eternity by an immutable decree elected a certain number to
salvation, whom He draws by irresistible grace, whose salvation He procured by
a particular atonement, who will without doubt persevere unto the end because
of their eternal election, then we DO have some sort of fatalism." My question is how is your view that much
different then, in regards to avoiding a charge of "fatalism" if God
knew through a prescient view of foreknowledge what would happen in time, and
he would have had to know who would "persevere to the end" in their
faith and who would not?
Nick: It isn't.
MOSES: So then why the charge
of fatalism against the doctrine of unconditional election in your responses?
Nick: Because Calvinism is fatalistic...Just
because my view is as well does not change that fact.
MOSES: In one of my responses
concerning the Greek doctrine of fatalism, I listed certain presuppositions
about fatalism as it is understood philosophically. were you able to look
into that?
Nick: About the metaphysical principles?
No... I hadn't looked into it..
MOSES: ok...I won't pursue much
further into that then to be fair
Nick: Truth be told the charge of
fatalism was a red herring I used to purposely take attention off of the main
topic because the case you presented was very strong and I didn't have a great
response.
MOSES: Do you think that your
view offers something better than the Calvinistic view if you are willing to
admit that it is equally as fatalistic according to your understanding of the
term?
Nick: No.
MOSES: could you explain that a bit?
Nick: I think that each view offers basically the same
thing. The elect, whoever they are, will be saved no matter what.
MOSES: While I would certainly
agree with that statement, the issue in the debate is how is one elected, so in
keeping with that, do you still believe that God chooses according to
"foreseen" faith in a person?
Nick: Yes. Although, I would say, "in accordance
with" rather than "according to" because they are simultaneous
(foreknowledge & election). One does not precede the other.
MOSES: What scriptural basis
can you offer to show that foreknowledge and election are a simultaneous act of
God?
Nick: Peter's statement in 1Peter 1:2, "elect
according to the foreknowledge" would lean me in that direction, although
the wording would seem to indicate that foreknowledge preceded election. The problem is
that things done in eternity are by nature timeless. Therefore, there exists no chronological
order.
MOSES: Doesn't it seem to be
the case in 1 Peter 1:2 that God's "foreknowledge" is the basis of
the election, thus, while not giving a "chronological order" at least
a logical one of sorts?
Nick: That would seem to be the case.
MOSES: What is your understanding
of the omniscience of God in regards to how He is omniscient?
Nick: I understand the omniscience of God to mean that he
has knowledge of all things... All things that have been done, are being done,
and will be done, things definite and things indefinite... He has knowledge of
all that is necessary and all that is contingent and has had such knowledge
from all eternity. I believe this flows directly from his
omnipresence because a Being who is everywhere at all times has knowledge of
all things that are occuring at all times.
I believe his omnipresence flows naturally from his omnipotence in that
an all powerful being can not be limited by space and time and still be
all-powerful.
MOSES: But if it is the case
that omnipresence is the cause of God's omniscience, then doesn't it follow
that omnipresence logically precedes God's omniscience? And if that is
the case, then does it not also follow that God did not know until he had space
to inhabit?
Nick: There is no
"cause" to God's omniscience... It flows from his omnipresence...
From all eternity this has been the case... An analogy I would draw although
flawed, would be the eternal generation of the Son... There is no
"cause" of
the Son, but he has proceeded forth from the Father from all eternity. Picture the Sun... Let's imagine the Sun was eternal. There
has never been a time when the Sun did not generate light and light did not
generate brightness. One would appear to be logically prior to the others, but
in reality they are all simultaneous...eternally flowing.