if total depravity is, then how are the non-elects responsible?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aki, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    yup, that's somewhat a lingering question.

    in total depravity, every individual is:

    1. born with Adam's sin. this got them condemned since birth. their volition is not tested for this imputation.

    2. has the sin nature. again, each one acquired the sin nature without any respect for volition. each one has it through seminal transmission - from parent to child. this got everone to sin. more so, unable to respond to God's general call - a call of God wherein God absolutely fails!

    given this case, each non-elect never had the choice but to be condemned, inclined to sin, and unable to respond to God's call. again, their volition was never tested for them to become depraved.

    taken, God is still just, sovereign, righeous, etc. with all these. nevertheless could we say that:

    1. each non-elect is responsible for his own condemnation? or is he made responsible?

    2. did they really had a choice?
     
  2. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Maybe I am reading this wrong but are we not praising God for his mercy but questioning his justice?... If God's purpose is to save everyone will he not save everyone?... If it is not the same applies!... Christ died for ALL the Father gave him to save and none else... Those who differ can argue with scripture and scripture NEVER contradicts itself but men do by false interpretation of scripture!... Brother Glen :eek:
     
  3. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Then guilt rests upon your shoulders for false interpretation.

    Christ's living is for the salvation of those who will believe in Him, He said so! "I came so that they might have life, and have it abundantly"

    He died for the sins of the world, including the sins of the elect! His purpose for dying was not to save any, but rather to eliminate sin as a factor in Salvation! With the penalty for sin paid, sins are not held against man! Jesus took sin to the grave so that man can believe and be saved without offering blood sacrifices to atone for sins. Blood Sacrifices are not what pleases God, it is our faith in Him that pleases Him...And, anyone can have faith in God, we are ALL capable of such faith!

    The only reason God does not save everyone, is because most are not willing to be saved through faith! The fields are white unto harvest but there are too few workers. It has nothing to do with some mysterious, unidentifiable "elect".

    The Father gave all the world to Jesus, even having Jesus be born on the earth as a human being so that he could empathize with humanity. But not all that the father gave to the son will be saved, and that is by their own choice. And what of the harvest? if the workers are not out there havesting there will be many lost, left in the field.
     
  4. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    yup. you are definitely reading it wrong, as shown by your "get-out-of-the-issue" answer. there is no questioning of God's justice in the first post. rather the point raised is that, given God's justice and everything in His being God, are the non-elects responsible for their own condemnation, given the fact of total depravity.

    sure there are scripture-interpretations such as this, however, given this, the issue raised is still not answered...

    apllies to both side. each one can say the same to the other. but when a topic is raised, i'd rather stick to the topic rather than give an accusation of false interpreation without any shown reason.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Their volition was tested in Adam.

    He had the perfect conditions ... no bad neighbors, no sin inclination, no bad living conditions, no nagging wife (and no one to compare her to) ... he had the perfect conditions and he couldn't do it ... If he couldn't, why in the world do you think your volition would have made the difference??

    It is not seminal but federal headship, as illustrated by Rom 5. To attribute failure to God is thin ice indeed. You should get off that lake in a hurry.

    Yes.

    Yes ... at any time he desires, he can turn to God for salvation.

    Have we not been through this before? Do you think the biblical teaching on this has changed since last time we hashed it out? Scripture is clear that Adam's sin was imputed to all of those in Adam, i.e., the human race. There are no exceptions. Scripture also makes it clear that each man is responsible for his own condemnation. He is kept from salvation only by his own choices to remain in sin. Scripture also makes it clear that man is unable to respond because sin has blinded him and hardened him to God. Scripture also makes it clear that God is completely and absolutely just when he saves by grace alone ... Why question it?
     
  6. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are responsible b/c they rejected God.

    In Christ,
    Bobby
     
  7. DCK

    DCK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2003
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's been my experience that on internet boards, whatever the subject, most questions are asked not in a genuine desire to learn or clarify, but simply to stir up emotions or (at times) to ridicule or demean the opposition. I guess it wouldn't be fun if we didn't goad and annoy each other. Most questions asked here are readily answerable (whether or not we find the answer agreeable), so something more must be going on.
     
  8. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    what do you actually mean by this? you cling to federal headship (bdw, so do i). that means everyone acquired Adam's sin not necessarily because each one will do the same, but simply because Adam's decision will affect his progeny. it is not that everyone will do the same. he was the representative because he is the federal head, and not because everyone will do the to what Adam did. and while i do not think that my volition will make the difference (wherein you once more included your style of personally accusing those who differ from you), i am also in no position to say that i would have done the same - it was only Adam's volition that was tested. his progeny simply acquired his sin, that got them condemned. they were represented alright, but not in a way that what Adam would do, everyone will also do. rather, Adam represented everyone in the sense of federal headship. Adam being the federal head is not the same as saying that what he will do, everyone will also do. and it should not be confused, which you do. in essence nobody can actually know whether he would have done the same as that of Adam. all we know is that Adam could have obeyed God, but chose not to. again, it is not that Adam could not do it, for God designed everything in such a way that Adam could, if he chose to.

    by the way, it is not that Adam could not do it. rather, he did not do it! to imply that Adam cannot do it is to attribute failure to God. technically, it may even lead to making God the author of sin. God provided Adam everything necessary for him to stay perfect under God. that means Adam CAN do it. so again, it is not that he could not do it. rather, he chose not to do it.


    you misrepresent Rom 5 here. it is not simply a matter of federal headship. it is also a matter of imputation. what Romans 5 is says is not only that Adam is the federal head of all humanity, while Christ is the federal head of all who believe. rather Rom 5 proves that everyone in Christ imputed Christ's righteousness as everyone is imputed Adam's sin. with this, it was only the volition of the two federal heads that were tested. they were not representative of the volition of everyone. also, it is not a due to seminal transmission.


    that is why the question of whether the non-elects are responsible is raised. their volition was not tested. imputation was carried out regardless of anyone's choice. none of us were given the chance to choose. we were simply imputed. and that makes everyone condemned since birth. so how is any non-elect responsible for that?


    his own choice? but does he have a choice not to?

    was he not born with an inclination to sin? was it not the case that nobody can remin sinless? more than that, is it not the case that even though a person does not commit a sin all his life (w/c is impossible) would still remain condemned due to Adam's imputed sin? in the tendency to commit sin, was it the non-elects fault that they are unable to stay sinless. of course they are responsible for their own sins. however, they sin because they have the sin nature, which they had regardless of their volition.

    no question at this. in fact this portion of calvinism is not attacked in this thread. in fact, this was assumed!

    where did i question it?
     
  9. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Y'all;
    I hope you don't mind if I butt in here.

    Man indeed had no choice the choice was Adam's. Because of His sin we all suffer and we are all sinful. Even little babies will cry for no other reason than attention driving the parents crazy with the deception.

    I don't see how man could have a choice until they are called. Jn 6:44 If all who come to Christ are drawn by God.

    Don't you think that this drawing is the election. He chooses whom He will offer Salvation to. Man Cannot come to Christ unless drawn by the Father.

    Don't you think all men when hearing the gosple are drawn some reject the drawing and some walk right into it. I believe the reason some reject it is because of pride.

    Is man totally depraved I'm beginning to have doubts in Romans 3:10-18 seems convincing but then I realized that this scripture is being quoted by Paul of Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 The first verse says it is originally said by a fool notice the fool also says there is no God. So because a fool originally said this, does it make it true?.
    It is true we are born in sin we had no choice in this that we know of
    I would think this depends on weather or not they have been drawn and rejected it. If they haven't been drawn who's fault could this be. Is it God's fault that men haven't fulfilled the great commission. I believe that it's our responsibility to preach the gosple to every living creature. This is how it works they have to hear first. If they don't hear then they are not responsible.
    May God Bless You.
    Mike
     
  10. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hello, Aki, countryman. Good to see you're still here. Been away for a while. My doctor did a number on me and fooled around with four of my coronary arteries. But he's okay, because I'm okay, and he's okay and I'm okay because God has his eyes on his people (me).

    Now to my question-comment:

    Judgin from your post, I think I should ask, what is Total Depravity to you ?

    Cheers.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point was not about ability but about what happened. Adam had the perfect situation and he didn't do right ... We have a very imperfect situation combined with our sin nature ... We would have done no different.


    you misunderstood what I was saying. The imputatio of Rom 5 is the proof of federal headship. Paul's point is that we become righteous the same way that we became sinners ... by imputation of our federal head.

    Because God said so ... that is the way he set it up and according to Romans 5, it was so that salvation could be carried out fully of grace.


    Yes, he simply refuses to make it. He is morally unable, not physically unable.

    More than that ... he was born a sinner with a sin nature.

    Yes, that is the case

    This is impossible ... everyone sins because everyone is a sinner. This is like asking, What is a circle had four sides?? It simply is an impossible hypothetical.

    Is not that the whole point of this thread????
     
  12. Sularis

    Sularis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOAH THERE LARRY - STOP RIGHT NOW!!!

    HOOOOOLLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!!

    There WAS at LEAST ONE perfect human being
    Jesus - yes He was also God - but He was completely human - you cannot take out a single human component out of Jesus - because then He can no longer be the perfect representative for us
    because He is unlike us - yes yes He was totally divine too - but for this argument His humanity is being called into question.

    And you know very well - that we do not inherit sin - we inherit the bias or tendency to sin

    The Bible is SO CLEAR that sin is NOT inherited either to the son or to the father

    so STOP IT
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa right there ... What in the world are you talking about?? I didn't say anything that contradicted this. In case you have forgotten, we believe in that doctrine of the virgin birth. The sin nature is passed on by traducianism. Christ was God; God does not have a sin nature. But you are wrong. There were actually two perfect humans. Adam was created that way and then fell. Christ was perfect and did not fall.

    As for a bias or tendency to sin, David in the Psalms said that he was conceived "in sin," not "with a tendency or bias to sin." That is a major difference it seems.

    So whatever you are whining about here, it is misplaced. I didn't say anything that contradicted this.
     
  14. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    that is why non-elects are born condemned. that is why they will reject God's ultimately failing general call. that is why they are born without the option to have the ability to choose for God or not. that is why they are born with a Adam's sin without regards to their volition. that is why born condemned - not due to their own volition. and come salvation, that is why they will not respond. they were born unable.

    so how are they responsible? because God said it so? but what say God on how they became responsible?

    you say because they sin. but do they have a choice not to? no, because of total depravity, which happen to them apart from their choice.
    you say they reject God's call. but do they have the ability not to? no, because they were born without that ability, a condidtion given to them not because they chose to...
    more so, the bible says they were imputed of Adam's sin. so they are born with a sin, and they are, since birth, condemned.


    that is why each non-elects are condemned without any regards to their volition. since birth, when they still cannot make a choice they are already condemned - and unable. so how do they become responsible for their condemenation?

    by they way, who imputes Adam's sin to his progeny?


    no question on this. but this will not answer how the non-elects are themselves responsible.


    now there is some light. what do you mean by that? he is morally unable, not physically unable? does this mean that the non-elects have the ability to accept God's calling? what advatages are there when you imply that they are physically abe though morally unable? you mean he has a choice to "accept it?" but if he is born morally unable, does that not mean that he actually cannot make such acceptance?

    hmm. he simply refuses it. can he accept it? was he born with the ability to accept it? total depravity says no!


    and so with the imputed sin of Adam and with the sin nature, they got totally depraved. so how are they responsible?

    not only that. they sin because they were born sinners! they became sinners not because they chose to, but because they were born that way, without any choice... and then you go on to say that they are condemned because they are sinners when in fact they became sinners regardless of their choice.

    put it this way. they are responsible for their condemnation because they are sinners. however, they are not responsible for being sinners! thus, they have no choice but to be condemned. therefore, at the bottom of it all, they start out as condemned, and have no choice but to remain that way, and be treated responsible.


    no! you misjudge me. this is the Calvinism-Arminianism forum. and this thread questions Calvinism - not God.
     
  15. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi pinoybaptist! i have long realized your absence here, and thought that you are gone for good. anyway, it is good to once again hear from you.

    in response to your question-comment, i sometimes think that maybe i misundertand total depravity, that is why i have my questions. but i hope you realize that i am not questioning God with my post. rather, it is the doctrine itself, as presented by calvinism.

    roughly said, i see total depravity, according to calvinism, as a condition wherein each man is born with:

    1. an imputed sin - Adam's. each one is imputed of Adam's sin. with this, God must condemn each man at birth.

    2. the sin nature. this got each one to commit their own personal sins. Adam's imputed sin, however, is already enough to condemn a man, such that even if a man does not commit a sin all his life (which contradicts having a sin nature), he remains condemned. more than that, the sin nature got everyone unable to respond to God's general call, though i think (and i may be wrong) that some calvinists do not actually teach the general call - only the call to the elects.

    given these two conditions, each man is born condemned, and each one will not turn to God. their volition however was not tested for them to become totally depraved. thus, when left with this alone, it becomes philosophically questionable whether they are responsble for their own condemnation or not.
     
  16. GH

    GH
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki, I agree with your statement above. So the entire issue of original sin, the old sin nature, the new man and the blood of Jesus Christ - in my mind - has been distorted by the Church. The following is an excerpt that I read on another board that gave me pause to re-think these very issues:

    Quote:

    WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS.......
    We didn't ask to be born......(can we ask to be born again without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit?)
    We didn't ask to have a body of flesh.......
    We didn't ask to have an inherited nature of sin.......
    We didn't ask to be under the penalty of death from our birth.......
    We didn't ask to be like sheep, constantly going astray.......
    We didn't ask to be bound in stubbornness.......
    We didn't ask to be tested by evil spirits.......
    We didn't ask to be enticed with numerous temptations.......
    We didn't ask to live under a curse of sickness and sin.......
    We didn't ask for a life of pain, sorrows, troubles and tears.......
    We didn't ask for this life on earth at all.......
    SO WHY IS MAN TOLD BY PREACHERS THAT HE WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS SINS, - WHEN HE RECEIVED against his will, not by his choice, AN INHERITED SIN NATURE FROM THE FIRST MAN ADAM?

    DECLARING THE WONDERFUL HOPE THAT ALL MANKIND WILL BE SAVED, EVENTUALLY. ---By Allen Steinhauer, Seattle, Wash. :Unquote

    It isn't about sin - it is about love and KNOWING GOD, imnho. May we know HIM!

    May His agape love enfold you today.

    GH
     
  17. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Aki;
    I don't think that man can be totally depraved and still be held accountable for sin.The only way man can be honestly held responsible is if he has a choice and is not dead to the hearing of God's word.

    May God Bless You.
    Mike
     
  18. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  19. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    One man can be depraved to a totality, but because of Jesus' atonement for sins,

    NOT ONE human's sins are held against them because salvation is a matter of faith.

    Faith is a matter of human choice (Deity had no need of faith)

    "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God", does not mean that faith is something the gives to man. It means that because God gives man the information necessary to form ideas and concepts in the mind that God gave man through the creation. Man uses that God given information in his mind to develop faith in God. Faith in God is what saves man.

    With that same God given mind, man can evaluate the data and either not act on it immediately, or can outright reject the data thus not developing faith in God who provides the data.

    Once man dies from this natural life, it is too late to evaluate anything, your choice has already been made, whether active or passive.

    With the penalty for sin already paid, that leaves the faith condition of the person as the only criteria for salvation.
     
  20. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pinoybaptist,

    i'm not sure if other calvinists will believe what you said. Adam's sin is imputed to everyone just as Christ's sin will be imputed to those who believe. i would suggest that you read Albert Barne's commentary on Romans chapter 5. while he is against the concept of the imputed sin, he nevertheless gave an excellent explanation on what it is, according to those who cling to it. Mr. Barnes' commentary is available for dowload at the e-sword webpage.

    meanwhile, your statements really do not prove why each man is responsible for their condemnation. rather, it only proves that they have no choice but to be responsible.
     

Share This Page

Loading...