Have you even read Pennington and McDonough? If you have you will realize that they are arguing for Cosmology to be understood within a Redemptive historical Framework…. THEY EVEN USE G. VOS TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION! Gaffin is the leading expert on Vos! Vanhoozer studied under Gaffin! Really?

Then you suggest Von Balthasar? Really? = Kenosis? Universalism?

I honestly don’t think you are on the same page as the RF guys here. The reading list you suggested above is like a shot-gun of Barthians, Post-conservatives, Catholics and then Southern Baptists where the common thread is the subject “Cosmology” not any definite dogma or doctrinal position. And could you choose a broader subject? No, literally, you couldn’t. “the monster in the room.” Wow. Could you be more nebulous and enigmatic?

I guess we can at least be grateful of your honesty in stating that you are not giving arguments.

Or for a theologian see Kevin Vanhoozer’s work on Remythologizing Theology. In order to actually see a new world of the text we have to see that the Redemptive Historical implicatures are themselves guides for a cosmological realism by which we understand the Universe. We have to kill this Worldview Hegelianism by which the Christian church dies the death of a thousand mini-epistemologies. Worldview is Gnostic and unembodied Idealism to boot.

The Christian church, either in its Anglican or Reformed/Presbyterian forms, will not survive the night when such theological expositions are ignorant of the most basic cosmological assumptions of our forefathers in the faith.

No, I do not suggest N. T. Wright, but at least Wright is not as inept as John Piper and Richard Gaffin in his ability to see the Scriptures Cosmological import. We must see what is actually necessary to be, in order for that Redemptive Historical to make sense. That is the job of theological prolegomena, my friends. This is a part of what the Paul does in his apologetic method. We must make sense of the background that bleeds into the text of Scripture in order for it to be used beneficially for our present context.

Read Michel Barnes The Power of God: Du´namis in Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology. Read Eucharistic Sacramentality in an Ecumenical Context: The Anglican Epiclesis by DAVID J. KENNEDY; THE IMPACT O F SCRIPTURE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY by D E N B O E FT AND M . L . V A N P O L L – V A N D E L I S DONK; Eucharist and Institution Narrative by Richard F Buxton;

Belief and Metaphysics by Peter M. Candler Jr., Conor Cunningham; Jean Danielou’s Doxological Humanism: Trinitarian Contemplation and Humanity’s True Vocation by Marc Nicholas

Read anything by Cyril O’Regan…. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics by Diana Coole, Samantha Frost; Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics by Oliver O’Donovan;
Eccentric Existence: A Theological Anthropology by David H. Kelsey; Concept and Form by Peter Hallward

Read how Calvin himself thought in such terms of the Subjective-Political ramifications of the Eucharist in Eucharist and Globalization: Redrawing the Borders of Eucharistic Hospitality by Cláudio Carvalhaes and The Body Broken: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) by Christopher Elwood

Or for a really fascinating piece Word and Silence: Hans Urs Von Balthasar and the Spiritual Encounter Between East and West by Raymond Gawronski.

How can one calm himself when the institutions in America are producing such things, ignorant of the most basic categories? This pseudo-science and pseudo-theology is the bane of the church. If we want to live out the night and hold to our great commission, one cannot but be sorely distressed by the vigilantism that is capturing the minds of so many young theologians like yourselves who have so much promise. How can one be silent when these pseudo-theologians are leading you to no where, to parochialism, looking for debates where they do not exist, and at the same time missing the monster in the room. Death is approaching and you do not feel its bite. The hoarfrost is coming and you do not realize your fingers are already numb and ready to break. This may sound like sentiment but the capacity to argue for such things has long past its time. There is no hope left. For I am sure you will go on your way in your Van Til infatuation. You will fall into the abyss and not even realize it has happened.

Good luck

Jordan,

Having listened to this section again, I readily acknowledge it was imprecise. Perhaps we can get Dr. Gaffin to follow up quickly on the issue. But for the moment, in my understanding, we should affirm that believers and unbelievers come from the same “corrupt stock.” All sinful men were born in sin and remain in sin. We are all—at one point—totally depraved. Effectually calling makes one alive together in Christ. As Dr. Gaffin mentioned, believers have also been definitively sanctified. They are no longer slaves to sin but slaves to righteousness.

I think the point being made was more about our sinful origins. Believers aren’t believers because they had some ability that unbelievers didn’t have. The difference between the two is God’s grace. But the way the point was made was ambiguous at best. Thanks for bringing it up.

Perhaps you could offer a constructive comment yourself. 🙂

I’ll certainly have to revisit what was said and its entire context, but a regenerate heart is not totally depraved. Believers are posse peccare, posse non peccare. Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, man is unable to respond to God’s call. Still, any obedience to the law always involves the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit (e.g. Phil 2:12–13). In that sense, believers are still in need of God’s grace at every point. Sin is involved in every aspect of the believer’s present (post-regeneration, pre-consummative) life, but in my understanding, that is not properly total depravity.

Are you suggesting we ground everything in metaphysics (not sure which one) instead of the unfolding revelation of our Lord throughout redemptive history? If so, I can understand why you don’t like these men, let alone this entire podcast. It is fine to disagree, but may I suggest you tone it down a little bit by speaking the truth in love. You can start by offering an argument instead of sentiment.

thanks

Thank you for your frank comments. I really can’t say if they are on target or not as I know so little about Calvinist theology. It did amuse me, however, that you would come into the lion’s den with all guns a-blazing. Perhaps you could recommend some “real theologians”, as you call them? I, for one, would be curious.

Just so you’ll know where I am coming from, I am not a Calvinist, nor could I ever be, but I do look forward every Friday to Camden’s offerings. I am a Catholic and I pretty much know what all the words mean in your reply. I had 27 hours of required philosophy in college, the scholastic philosophy of Aquinas, based on Aristotle’s moderate realism (my eyes glaze over now whenever someone mentions philosophy or metaphysics).

Words can be slippery little things and don’t always mean the same thing to everyone, as Illegitimate Totality Transfer would imply.

The term “total depravity” is one such term that seems to be causing confusion here with Jordan, Joel, and Keith asking for more clarification from Dr. Gaffin or Camden. I can’t help them with that. Personally, whenever I hear the term I visualize an almost diabolical person, an evil presence. I would guess that the other commentators would all have their own personal response or definition of what it means.

Now, Jordan’s quote from WCF 9.3 defining total depravity is a case in point:

“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

I don’t think that any Catholic or Orthodox theologian would find fault with the definition. Man, by his own actions, can never do enough to achieve salvation. He is dependent upon the grace of God. This was declared dogma many centuries ago at the Council of Orange.

I think what scares and turns people off is the term “total depravity”. If the Calvinists would just stick with the inability of man to achieve salvation by his own efforts their world-view would not appear so dark and threatening to other Christians. Don’t ratchet up the WCF definition. Drop the T from TULIP. (There’s still the problem of double pre-destination but that’s another thing).

Just my opinion.

Seriously, are these interviews all there is to say on these topics? If I listened to an interview on the same topic with the same people two years ago, would it sound the same? I think it would. You have so little constructive, positive work because the depths are so shallow. This entire movement is a fallacy, Illegitimate Totality Transfer, to speak of it linguistically. There are other names for it in other fields.

Thankfully, this school will die out when people begin to read real theologians, not charlatans like Lane Tipton and Gaffin.

Now, Jordan, in what you quoted from WCF 9.3, the confession is talking about the inner man, which is what I think we frequently mean by “total depravity” – total depravity being the reason that sinners cannot turn their hearts toward God. The interpretation of Dr. Gaffin’s words consistent with his book is that he was referring to what I said above about the outer man; in believers, the resurrected inner man has not worked itself out into the members of the outer man to a complete extent. But as far as I can tell, the definition of “total depravity” was unclear. Camden?

I really got a lot out of “Resurrection and Redemption” and am looking forward to reading “Not by Sight”.

Thanks for the podcast.

“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

As you all probably know, this very question was brought to the fore in our circles some time ago when Tullian T. wrote a controversial article on his Gospel Coalition blog asking this very question “Are believers totally depraved?” and answering with a resounding affirmative. Rick Phillips (a former student of Gaffin) provided, what seems to me, a very typical Reformed response to such an assertion by arguing that believers are most certainly NOT totally depraved, enlisting the support of Berkhof and Reymond to show that total depravity, at least as it has been defined by Reformed scholars, is not a helpful or biblical way of describing the believer. To be honest, then, I’m a bit baffled by the statement, made twice, that believers are totally depraved. To my knowledge (which is indeed quite limited) this is not how the Reformed have typically spoken on this issue.

I’m wondering if you (Camden), since you seemed to agree with Dr. Gaffin’s claim, could clarify what you mean in this regard. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems that Dr. Gaffin’s soteriology would squarely militate against the assertion, by TT and his ilk, that believers are totally depraved as is abundantly clear in this very interview when Dr. Gaffin speaks of definitive sanctification as that once for all breach with sin whereby its dominion over the believer is broken. “We are as dead to sin, with a view to serving sin as our master, as we are definitively justified.” Pure gold!

I’m not trying to make a mountain out of a mole mill here. I was just a bit surprised when I heard some of these statements and hoped some of the contributors might be able to shed some light on this subject.

Thanks so much for the very helpful interview!