Calvinism - TULIP - "T"otal Depravity

Most Non-Cals will agree with you here, that man in and of himself can do nothing good (as in salvic good). There are some key things to note here 1). in and of himself and 2) can 'do' nothing salvicly good (the word 'do' refers to works).
However where we typically differ is not that man cannot 'do' anything in or of himself to be saved but the understanding of what the typical Calvinists understands in relation to the work of God in the world through His Spirit because of mans depravity. IOW - the Calvinistic understanding of depravity and what God does in relation to it that one might be saved.

Both agree that without God's work no man can believe because no man knows that he even has a need to believe anything for he is blind to his own state. And that no man can come to the knowledge of truth (spiritual truth) without God himself first revealing it to man because mans sin distorts and pollutes all he will obtain intellectually through any of the sin impaired 5 senses we use.

As do the non-Cals. What you specifically wrote the Non-Cals do not argue with because man can 'do' nothing to save himself. However issue is not in what was said but what was meant of course

Since I know what you are intending to mean here I will comment on the intent and not what is actually stated (because I agree with what is written).

It is here where it appears you start getting into contradictions even in your own words. The inability that scripture speaks of is always in reference to man doing something spiritually good by himself or coming to spiritual truth by himself - IOW - without God's intervention.

However in the first section of your post that I quoted I took the liberty to underlined one thing you said that brings a contradiction to what you just stated (regarding the calvinistic intent there in) about being "spiritually bankrupt". In the first portion you state:
"The adjective “total” does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be"
and then turn around and state:
"The inability intended by this terminology is spiritual inability; it means that the sinner is so spiritually bankrupt that he can do nothing pertaining to his salvation."

So at one point you state that a person is not so total as to be completely corrupt on all his thoughts and actions and then state that man is just that corrupt.
Which is it?

Question - Can the unregenerate IF they 'know' (God revealing) there is a possiblity to be freed to a different life, have a desire or wish for such ??

Agreed.


All the arguments below I state are based entirely upon God's intervention and not that man is able to 'do' (works) something of or by himself. Salvation is an act of God, repentence is the act of man unto salvation (2 Cor 7:10). But we are saved not because God is bound to save us based upon something we 'do' (work-wise) but because it is His desires to have mercy upon those who will obey.

Spiritual deadness is not disputed it is the understanding of what that deadness means and thus entails.

Again their minds being darkened is not in dispute but the extent of corruptness is. Is man so corrupt that he is as bad as he can be?? If not then IF God so reveals truth to the darkened mind (thus illuminating to a degree some or that aspect of their darkness) can they not desire contrary their coruptness since man is not as corrupt as he can be?

If a man is bound to be a slave of another can they not desire to be free if someone shows their true state and any possible hope? Remember that what is state regarding bondage is based upon the understanding of a slave. That slave must do what his master says but that does not mean he can not desire contrary to his master.

We are agreed here. All mankind are under the bondage of sin.

Some of your verses have nothing to do with 'inability'.
However, as I stated previously. Man of and by himself can 'do' nothing salvic or to save him. The fact that man of himself is inable to come to God is again not indispute but what is disputed is that when God reveals truth man, man can choose to be accept it or reject.

Just because God calls someone to Himself does not mean they will come (Prov 1:22-(24)-33; Rom 10:21[/B), and just because He reveals truth to a person does not they will believe it (Rom 1:18- ), and just because a person rejects the gospel does not mean that it could not have saved them (2 Thes 2:10-13).

Thus the truth of Total Depravity reveals man as he is without God or His intervention.

 

jdlong...

That is a very good overview of the issues involved in "total depravity" as Calvinists see it. Unfortunately, Calvies suffer under 2 very serious delusions in just this one "pedal" of the TULIP:

1) They make no distinction between soul and spirit. To Calvies, the soul (conscience, self and God awareness) and the spirit (intellect, emotions, and will) are both dead from birth (sin nature).

Not so. The Bible tells us that SIN causes the SOUL to die, Ezek 18:20. Yet Calvies insist that everyone is born "dead as Lazarus" in John 12. Let's just take a deep breath and realize that the spirit may be spiritually dead to God but we all, so long as we are living, haven't lost the use of our brains where spiritual information of all sorts is "received and processed."

2) They have a misguided "model" of the sin nature. Every creature born into this world has INSTINCTS that allow it to survive, grow, and regenerate in kind. Only the human creature has "spiritual laws" whereby instincts are regulated for the common good through conscience, family, government, commandment, etc. It is when our "instinctive" acts encounter these "spiritual laws" that we have SIN in the strictest sense of the word, Rom 7:9-11.

The same thing that allows us to understand "spiritual law" (conviction) and obey it on these various levels is the thing that makes us capable of "seeing" God's provision for sin and obeying it unto salvation.

Ergo, Calvinism's "totally depraved" person just does NOT exist! There is no creature alive that is 1) brain dead and 2) living totally instinctively with no regard for spiritual regulation of his behavior.

skypair

 

Scripture for man being born with a "heart of stone"? If man is born "dead", with dead by definition meaning the ceasing of life...when was the individual who was born "dead" alive, and when?

 

First, in context that is referring to Isreal collectively, not individually. Second, that does not imply that man is BORN with this "heart of stone".

So...since death is the ceasing, or ending of life...when do these individuals who were born "dead" possess life for it to have ended?

 

Those verses are also used to refute Augustinian original sin. The "all" in Romans speak of sin in past tense. When do fetuses sin? In Psalm, David's mother did conceive him a sinner, but that does not state David was conceived as a sinner. I don't know how your passage in James is being used to uphold original sin, since it is speaking of lust leading to death.

So at some point in the womb, the Holy Spirit regenerates an individual...and then they die spiritually at some point prior to birth? You stated we are all born dead, remember? Since death is the ceasing of life, all have to be alive at some point before death occurs. When is this?

 

How can you use the word "total" if that is not what you mean???? This is the CREDIBILITY problem for Calvinism. They say "total" and then have to back away from it. It's like a total lie that we are supposed to believe!

It's called "SIN," jd. Please answer the points my post makes.

A) Soul and spirit.

B) Sin nature.

skypair

 

As it turns out, we have a few on here that believes the word dead means anything but dead.

 

Wow! Does that 'prayer' ever echo the sentiments of numerous non-Cals on the BB!

 

...and we have a few more that believe dead means corpse. I believe dead means what dead is supposed to mean in the context it is used. If the calvinists did the same thing, we would be a lot closer to agreement.

 

Define original sin. Augustinian original sin? No. The original sin of satan? Adam and Eve?

 

I don't agree with "a", and somewhat with "b", too. This view would have every fetus and newborn who dies reprobate, unless there is some special dispensation of salvation for this group of mankind not spoken of in Scripture (there are calvinists here who believe just that)