Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Bethsaida and Chorazin

This morning, I listened to the most recent Dividing Line from James White. While the Rob Bell interview he covered at the end was quite interesting (and demonstrates a lot of Arminians out there owe Justin Taylor a huge apology), the purpose of this post is actually to point out something from the middle question Dr. White was asked about Chorazin and Bethsaida.

An Arminian question posed to John Samson (which he passed on to James White) is essentially this: Since Jesus says that had Tyre and Sidon seen the works performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida they would have repented in dust-cloth and ashes long ago, doesn’t this imply that Total Depravity is wrong, because those people would not have repented due to the regenerating work of the Spirit, but rather upon the observation of a few miracles?

Now, I agree with White’s interpretation of the text, and think that his view is most likely the correct one on this issue (i.e., that the point of the passage is that those who had the light of Scripture had become more blinded than those who had not had it, and were therefore condemned more than those who had not had such light). I further believe that the repentance that Christ talks about in that passage is not salvific repentance, but rather a turning from some aspects of evildoing (similar in a way to how God restrains evil on earth using civil governments to enforce morality without that enforced morality being salvific).

Regardless, it is too irresistible not to try to tweak the Arminians a bit, for this passage is actually far more detrimental to the Arminian view than to the Reformed view.

Let us take the usual Arminian assumption that the passage is talking about salvific repentance for a moment. Where did Tyre and Sidon end up? Hell. What this means is that Christ knowingly and intentionally sent people to Hell after saying that if they had but seen the “mighty works” they would have repented. To which one could ask, using Arminian definitions of the terms:

What love did Christ show those souls who are in Hell when He knew full well that they would not have gone there if He had but shown up and performed miracles for them? Christ knew how to guarantee these people were not in Hell—presumably without violating free will (since we are going by Arminian assumptions here)—and yet He did not do the very thing He said would save them. Where is the universal love of Christ toward all men in that view? Where is God’s intention to save as many as He can after that? Are there not people in Hell whom God could have saved, knew how to save, and willingly did not save? If so, what precisely is the moral objection to Calvinism again?

Naturally, the Arminian could agree with me that Christ is not speaking of repentance unto salvation—but if he goes this route, then his objection to the Calvinist is rendered moot as well, for Christ is not saying one could become saved without the regeneration of the Spirit, but only that one can turn from extreme evil behavior in this present life simply by observing miracles. Therefore, it’s not a rejection of Total Depravity. But if the Arminian is to insist this is talking about repentance unto salvation, then it causes far more problems for his theology than it scores points against the Reformed view.

Again, I believe these points to be tangential to the meaning of the passage, and I think White’s interpretation is the correct one. If you have not listened to it, I highly recommend you do so. Nevertheless, Arminians, you have some tough questions to answer.

7 comments:

  1. "I further believe that the repentance that Christ talks about in that passage is not salvific repentance, but rather a turning from some aspects of evildoing..."

    No, it seems pretty clear that salvific repentance is in view here. This oracle is prompted by those cities' rejection of Jesus, and he wasn't on a mission simply to constrain some aspects of civil behavior: "Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent." (Matthew 11:20) This is the same repentance to which Jesus was calling everyone he preached to.

    It seems that this passage is quite rhetorical. By suggesting that Jesus' miracles would have caused Sodom to repent, he is making a point about Chorazin and Bethsaida, not about Sodom. Similarly, suggesting that the judgment will be more tolerable for Sodom is saying something about how terrible it is for Chorazin and Bethsaida, not about how easy Sodom will have it. This is along the lines of "You guys are so dumb you make zombies look smart." It raises none of the issues you suggest here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JD,

    I tried to send this before and blogger hiccuped on me. Your last paragraph is very similar to the way James White interprets the passage. However, my post was specifically addressed to those who would use this passage as if it were relevant to the Calvinist/Arminian discussion.

    As to it being salvific repentance in view, I do not believe it is primarily because we are dealing with the city level. That is, if the passage was dealing with individuals, then I would say it's possible you're looking at salvific repentance. But since he's comparing cities, it seems to me that he's using a more cultural repentance, similar to Ninevah after Jonah's prophecy.

    But I won't haggle too much over it if you disagree. I think it's a minor point, and since I agree with both your and White's belief that the passage does not truly raise these questions, that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is it good/bad/both/neither to believe the proposition: I need to turn from sin to avoid the temporal wrath of God?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "As to it being salvific repentance in view, I do not believe it is primarily because we are dealing with the city level. That is, if the passage was dealing with individuals, then I would say it's possible you're looking at salvific repentance. But since he's comparing cities, it seems to me that he's using a more cultural repentance, similar to Ninevah after Jonah's prophecy."

    That seems unlikely. It was common to speak in generalities at the time. Israel itself is condemned for its refusal to accept Christ. The same is said of Jerusalem and Jews in general.

    In the prior verses, the "works" Christ did are also referenced. They are done so that the audience will accept Christ as being sent from God. John demonstrates the appropriate response by sending his disciples to ask if Christ is the One sent by God. The point being that anyone who can do such things should be taken at his word.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lkgowdy said:
    ---
    That seems unlikely. It was common to speak in generalities at the time. Israel itself is condemned for its refusal to accept Christ. The same is said of Jerusalem and Jews in general.
    ---

    Actually, that's part of my point. We know that it was never the case that every Israelite was saved or unsaved, but Israel as a whole is considered either Godly or wicked throughout its history (mostly wicked). At no point was the country itself either saved or damned; rather, whether it was considered good or evil was dependent upon what kind of society and culture was present.

    I believe that the context of understanding the way these cities were viewed would be to look at the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. Jonah proclaims God's judgment against the city. The city repents. God averts destruction.

    But does anyone believe the population of Nineveh converted to Judaism, circumcised all the males, and began to worship Yahweh?

    Instead, what it looks to me as what happened is that Nineveh was a wicked city, even by pagan standards. God threatened to punish them for how wicked they were. The king instituted moral reforms that ceased most of the wicked behaviors that had been going on--but not a religious turn to Judaism or true worship of God--and God relented of the promised punishment.

    This is the kind of repentance I think Jesus is talking about when it comes to Tyre and Sidon. I don't think He was saying they would have become religious followers, but instead that the very works that were demonstrated would have caused even the pagans to stop behaving so wickedly, while those who had been given the law were made harder by viewing those signs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter,

    One of my posts did not appear, so the end of this post is a rewrite of something I posted earlier. It will seem out of order, perhaps.

    Peter said...

    Actually, that's part of my point. We know that it was never the case that every Israelite was saved or unsaved, but Israel as a whole is considered either Godly or wicked throughout its history (mostly wicked). At no point was the country itself either saved or damned; rather, whether it was considered good or evil was dependent upon what kind of society and culture was present.

    Given that standard, no city in history is exempt. Yet the obvious relationship between wickedness vs repentance on the one hand, and going to heaven vs Hades on the other, rules out your conclusion. Certainly Christ isn't teaching that whole cities go to heaven. Rather, the general attitude of the people in those cities was so extreme that the general judgment that will befall them is worse than the people in the most wicked cities known.

    They don't accept him for who he is. They rejected the Son of Man (12:19), God's true Israelite.

    I believe that the context of understanding the way these cities were viewed would be to look at the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. Jonah proclaims God's judgment against the city. The city repents. God averts destruction.

    Christ doesn't mention physical destruction. Rather, he ties their response to him to a dentiny of heaven or Hades.

    The purpose of the signs was not to change their morality, but to get them to turn to God through the One he has sent. Obviously moral behavior is strongly tied to a proper response to God, but behavior is not truly moral apart from the proper response to God. These people were being condemned, however, for not accepting him for who he was, as did John.

    Finally, it appears that your original post involves a false choice, in that neither Armininism (in the classical sense) nor Calvinism reject total depravity/inability. Both subscribe to a metaphysics of conversion that requires the activity of the Holy Spirit to respond to God. The Arminian position is that such activity can be resisted, in general. Hence, the Arminian is not challenged by the passage as you have presented it.

    Nor is God required to do "all that he can" in the classical Arminian paradigm. Obviously you have seen people say such things, and you call them Arminain, but I haven't come across such people outside the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First off, I have to say that it's absolutely awesome that on St. Patrick's day, my Word Verification for this comment is "prots."

    Anyway, lkgowdy said:
    ---
    One of my posts did not appear, so the end of this post is a rewrite of something I posted earlier. It will seem out of order, perhaps.
    ---

    Yes, Blogger is acting up of late. I'm starting to make a habit of copying my post onto the clipboard before I click "submit."

    You said:
    ---
    Yet the obvious relationship between wickedness vs repentance on the one hand, and going to heaven vs Hades on the other, rules out your conclusion.
    ---

    I disagree. First off, the cities themselves do not go to either heaven or hell. The people in them do. Furthermore, the way Jesus states it is as a collective generalization. The statement is a moral judgment about the overall morality of the cities, not about each individual person in those cities.

    We do the same thing now. We say that 1930s-1940s Germany was evil, for instance. But that ignores the fact that there were many Germans who opposed the Nazis (often at the cost of their life). So if I told you, "If Nazi Germany had seen the mighty signs, they would have repented" you would not conclude from that sentence that I'm saying the inhabitants of Germany would have gone to heaven, but rather you would conclude that I am saying there would have been no Holocaust.

    I think that's the type of thing Jesus was saying here.

    You said:
    ---
    Finally, it appears that your original post involves a false choice, in that neither Armininism (in the classical sense) nor Calvinism reject total depravity/inability.
    ---

    That's not true of Arminianism. I know they use the words "total inability" but they do not mean by those words what Calvinists mean by them, and it's disingenuous to pretend we believe the same thing on that subject.

    As to the "false choice" aspect, it's hardly a false choice given that I gave the link to what I was refering to (the Arminian who posed the question to John Samson in the first place).

    You also said:
    ---
    Nor is God required to do "all that he can" in the classical Arminian paradigm.
    ---

    Yet Arminians accuse the Calvinist God of being immoral precisely because He does *NOT* do all that He can to save people. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    ReplyDelete