Total Depravity

Latreia said,

Do you mean to say that man does, in fact, have the say so in his relationship with God? After all, "man did not react correctly", means that man had to exercise his free will and choose from among the options. God had nothing to do with making man have a reprobate mind! It was all man, making choices and taking individual action. The translation is "The New Jerusalem Bible".

Do you mean to say that "Abraham's believing God" is something over which Abraham had no power or control? An individual human being's believing is totally from within the individual. What he believes is based upon what his spiritual and mental state accepts when a decision must be made. If all your mind has to work with is sin, then your belief will have its basis in sin. If however you have other options, your mind must work much harder to arrive at a belief. What one person has to base belief on may not be the same factors that another has as a basis of belief. There are, however, many things for which there is a common belief among men. For example Newton told us that what goes up must come down. We know that to be true in reference to the earth which has gravity. But if you are where gravity does not exist, that which is expelled away from you keeps on truckin', never to be seen again. There are many physical laws because we hold the evidence to be true, and repeatable. There are also Spiritual laws where the evidence is true and repeatable. Total depravity is not such a law, because it does not apply equally to all men except to say that for all have sinned. It doesn't say that for all men keep on sinning and sinning and sinning. So, somewhere in this situation man must have learned something that made him change his mind about what he was doing. Therefore he accepted something other than sin, and acted on that by changing his beliefs in accordance with the "new truthes". That is repentence!
Did that bring salvation? NO, it simply removed the stygma of "total depravity" because he no longer could think of nothing else. Man still must make the choice about God, whether or not God exists, and whether or not to believe in His only begotten Son, the savior, the Christ. Man must, through hearing the word, determine for himself the validity of the Christian religion.

Total depravity says that man cannot repent from sinning. I have personally witnessed and experienced repentance that was not based on religion, but rather personal desire. For one thing, I quit smoking, I repented from smoking which I now view as sin. I had no sense of divine intervention in that effort. Though a believer at the time, I was constantly among many believers who were also smokers. After I quit, the others began to repent too. Some would say that God took us away from the repugnant habitual practice because we were believers, but not one of us can testify to divine intervention, and we have "friends" who were non believers who also quit smoking of their own free will. We simply made our choices and carried out what we willed to do, and that was repenting from smoking. I am personally very happy that I did repent.

Let me say one thing to you, I am not! I am reading the scripture in their context and deriving meaning based on what is there, not some nebulous concept of what another man, e.g. Calvin or Armenius, says the meaning should be.

I assume nothing, you are the one twisting scriptures. You clearly demonstrate to me with today's living people any one of them who did not arrive at faith in God within themselves, and by their own volition and personal choice and you might, just might be able to establish your point.

Are you saying that one can work off the wage for sin? That the sinner can choose between work or death? Wow, I'd rather do that than face my God, confessing to him that I have failed him once again.

Newton made a discovery statement about gravity, and it became law. "What goes up must come down", but the author of Hebrews cannot make a statement even more important, yet it does not become law? So, explain to me just how does faith come to man? Does man have to "do anything" or be "any way" in order for God to "give" him faith? Does God give to the totally depraved "a faith in God"? If yes, how is that accomplished? Doesn't the depravity block faith?

In the parable of the sower, there are several types of ground upon which the seed may fall. There is the Totally Depraved (rock hard), The less totally depraved (adobe clay), the even less totally depraved (rocky and good soil mixed) The slightly depraved, (good but not the best), and there is the "wannabe depraved" (fertile soil). The seed is God's "faith" that he is dispensing to man. Is that right so far? NO! NO! NO! The seed is not faith, the seed is TRUTH. Man (the ground) receives the truth and grows faith. Faith is based on truth not the other way around. Faith is not a commodity that God dispenses!

Faith is not what brings corpses back to life, lest Elvis Pressly, among many others would be among the living. Being dead in sins is strictly a spiritual relationship to God! Sin separates us from God therefore we are counted as dead because of sin. Slavery is a bondage to something or someone. Truth is what sets the slave free. That is why slavery existed in Israel and many other parts of the world during the time of Paul's writings. That is the reason why Paul wrote the book of Philemon urging him to restore Onesimus without the usual punishments for a run away slave. Slavery was accepted within the church. So how did Onesimus come to be away from Philemon? He escaped of his own free will!

Excuse me? What did you say in the preceding quote? "But he did have to", and the topic was God having faith. Faith is not of God, it is of man who requires faith because he does not have the reality. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". So tell me what is there that God would hope for or not see? That's right, God needs no faith, simply because he is Creator God, who sees and knows all! Does that make sense to you?

Strictly an observation based upon your writings, and your use of scriptures! Nothing personal meant by it!

I agree that God's only son is a gift of God's grace, but that is not what Paul is saying in 2 Cor 9:15.

God's Grace for all of creation is "the gift" Paul was addressing here. Not the Gift of God's only Son. See verses 6 thru 15. Religionists have been attempting to describe God's Grace for milleniums, and virtually everyone of them have failed to do so. Therefore, Grace is the indescribable gift.

 

You see, Yelsew, this is called quoting scripture AND understanding it. It does not add man's (mis)understanding of how things seem like they should work, because that introduces error.

 

Yelsew,

You'll have to pardon me if this doesn't come out entreily coherent. I am drugged up and trying to ditch a 103 temp.

"Do you mean to say that man does, in fact, have the say so in his relationship with God?"

No. I am saying tyat man does in fact ahave a esponsibility to respond correctly to the revelation to him.

"After all, "man did not react correctly", means that man had to exercise his free will and choose from among the options."

It means that man made a choie. It is not a truly free choice sine human nature is conditioned by the Fall. People do not fail to ret incorrectly. That is Paul's teaching.

"God had nothing to do with making man have a reprobate mind! It was all man, making choices and taking individual action."

Read Ro. 1:28. God gave then over to a reprobate miibd. God had somethng to do with it. God's action was in response to Man's failure. At any rate the problem you are having at this point is that you are making a statement about the exercie of choce pre-fall. All sides agree that man before the fall could respond to God appropriately. It is after the Fall tha is the issue. Please don't confuse them.

"The translation is "The New Jerusalem Bible"."

Hm... Never read that one. It obviously has some quirks compared to a more literal rendering of the Greek found in translations like the NASB.

"Do you mean to say that "Abraham's believing God" is something over which Abraham had no power or control?"

No. I am saying that one God called him, an effectual call, Abraham made the correct choice. God's effectual call overcomes the effects fo the Fall, giving faith.

"Total depravity says that man cannot repent from sinning."

Not quite. It teaches that man canot repent without help. He can't do it on his own.

"Let me say one thing to you, I am not! I am reading the scripture in their context and deriving meaning based on what is there, not some nebulous concept of what another man, e.g. Calvin or Armenius, says the meaning should be."

Here you are wrong. Justification is by faith. That is Paul's teaching in the pasage you cite, The question you are actually asking though is about election. That isn't by faith bu by God's grace, hisa sovereign choice, and that is not addressed in the passage you cite. You are making a basic mistake of interpretation, attmepting to get the text to answer your questions, rather than lettng the text speak for itself.

"I assume nothing, you are the one twisting scriptures."

That is an empty statement. It is a fact that you assume that man can be the soure of saving faith. Without tha asumptiuon your position has no foundation. If you don't see your own unspoken assumtpions that's your problem.

"You clearly demonstrate to me with today's living people any one of them who did not arrive at faith in God within themselves, and by their own volition and personal choice and you might, just might be able to establish your point."

Fine:. Me. You. Everybody. To you it looks like you did it. Scripture teaches otherwise.

Thes broad statements are not conducive to a good dialogue. Please cease.

"Are you saying that one can work off the wage for sin?"

Of course not. I am saying that it is impossible to do just that in part because of TD. It is your position that leads to the idea of works.

"That the sinner can choose between work or death?"

Paul does not say that.

"Newton made a discovery statement about gravity, and it became law. "What goes up must come down", but the author of Hebrews cannot make a statement even more important, yet it does not become law?"

It is obvious that faith comes by other means than hearing. The deaf cannot hear. Besides this is about the nature of the literature. Paul is not making law type statement.

"In the parable of the sower, there are several types of ground upon which the seed may fall."

The parable of the sower is about 4 soils, yes.

"There is the Totally Depraved (rock hard), The less totally depraved (adobe clay), the even less totally depraved (rocky and good soil mixed) The slightly depraved, (good but not the best), and there is the "wannabe depraved" (fertile soil)."

Boy now that is reading things in to the text. Ther is only one soil that actually gives a harvest. Do you suppose that is created by the individual? The sower is not us you know.

And you are ignoring the fact that this parable occurs in a context where Jesus makes it plain that oinly those to whom the understanding is given actually understand. That's calvanist, not arminian.

"Faith is not what brings corpses back to life, lest Elvis Pressly, among many others would be among the living. Being dead in sins is strictly a spiritual relationship to God!"

I was referring to teh fact that we are called dead in sins. The corpses are us. And the faith tha revives is supposed to be ours. The point was that dead people don't beleive anyting.

"Excuse me? What did you say in the preceding quote?"

You misunderstood, and I corrected you. Its up to you to eitehr accet the correction or go on talking about asomething you did not undestand. Not interested in doing that.

"Strictly an observation based upon your writings, and your use of scriptures! Nothing personal meant by it!"

Drop those comments. I am not intrested in how you justify them.

"I agree that God's only son is a gift of God's grace, but that is not what Paul is saying in 2 Cor 9:15."

Jesus the Son is called a gift. Gfits are fo grace, not obligation or else the are not gifts. That is Paul's logic elsewhere in Romans also.

"God's Grace for all of creation is "the gift" Paul was addressing here. Not the Gift of God's only Son."

The Son is ion the context (8:9). Jesus is the heart of the gospel fopr Paul, so the gift, either taken as referring to the proclamation about Jesus or thegivng of Jesus, the focus of the gift is still Jesus.

BTW, thank you npetreley and PB for your insightful posts.

 

Hi yelsew;
Just want you to know that you are not alone in your beliefs. I for one am glad you're here.I can readily see that these guys are ganging up on you but, I applaud you for your steadfastness. Please keep up the good work.
May God give you the support of his knowledge.I know He will. A MEN
Romanbear
Peace

 

Primitive Baptist said,

Now that you have heard, you must decide whether or not to believe it! You were not near Jesus and Peter when this conversation took place. All you can do is accept or reject what is written. You have a decision to make do you not? Faith is decisional, every one who hears must decide whether or not to believe and become willing to be regenerated.

 

Thank you romanbear,

They just haven't yet figured out they are struggling against truth, and not against Yelsew.

I appreciate your prayers on my behalf, and welcome you to join in the discussion.

They seem to think there is merit in aligning themselves to Calvin or Armenius. Paul called such grouping, foolishness.

Shucks, I could call myself a McGee-ist, or a Stanley-ist, or a Swindoll-ist, or a MacArthur-ist, or a Grahamite, or A Chuck Smitherine, but there is no value gained by aligning with any of them. There are mere sinners, Saved, and a couple of them are with Jesus today.

They do remind me though why I am a non-hyphenated Christian, unaffiliated with any denomination or congregation; even though I attend church two or more times a week.

[ January 07, 2003, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Latreia, Sorry to hear you are so feverish, I pray that God will restore your health. Even so, You said,

If man "has a responsibility" (a duty that man must do) to respond correctly to the revelation to him, then he must have the ability to discern the revelation. If he has the ability to discern, then he has the ability to act in accordance with free will which includes believing and accepting God or believing and accepting satan.

If man has this, he cannot accept Calvinism which says, "that he has no responsibility to discern and act accordingly"! The Cake is set before you, you can either 'have the cake' or you can 'eat the cake' but you cannot have the cake and eat it too!

 

Sorry, but that is a misrepresentation of Calvinism... Calvinism affirms man's responsibility to discern and act accordingly. It simply has a scriptural view of how often natural men meet that responsibility.

 

Unfortunately, it is you who is having the struggle. We are not struggling in the least with what Scripture says.

Aligning oneself with Calvin or Arminius is not at issue. Their names have been attached to a set of basic doctrines about what Scripture teaches. In Calvinism, we are not more aligning ourselves with John Calvin then we are with the man of the moon. We are aligning ourselves with the words of Scripture as taught by Christ, Paul, Peter, John, and the rest of the apostles.

 

We understand. Augustine, Calvin, Knox and present day Calvinists were or are independent thinkers. But, let's not blame the Holy Spirit for instructing error wherever it might be found.

 

Nobody here is blaming the Holy Spirit for instructing error. We do not believe that the Holy Spirit instructs error. We do believe that he instructs according to the written word of God.

 

"If man "has a responsibility" (a duty that man must do) to respond correctly to the revelation to him, then he must have the ability to discern the revelation. If he has the ability to discern, then he has the ability to act in accordance with free will which includes believing and accepting God or believing and accepting satan."

If we were talking Pre-Fall, I'd agree. But post-Fall, we lack that. You still do not reckon with the effects fthe Fall. It is for that reasopmn that Arminianism is better called semi-pelagianism. TD teaches that every part of us has been tainted. We do not, as a matter of fact and nature, so respond without the calling of God.

"If man has this, he cannot accept Calvinism which says, "that he has no responsibility to discern and act accordingly"! The Cake is set before you, you can either 'have the cake' or you can 'eat the cake' but you cannot have the cake and eat it too!"

Wrong. Calvanism teaches that Man has the responsibility, but becasue of the Fall, we now lack the ability. You are trying to say that responsibiity must come with ability. That isn't true. The fact is though that God overcomes our inability with his effectual call.

 

Just what do you think the fall did to human life/existance? Did Adam instantaneously lose his humanity, everything that God created him to be? Did he become brain dead? Did he change from the most intelligent human ever to live to be the idiot of all time?

NONE of the above! Nothing Happened to his humanity except a slight relocation from a beautiful Garden to possibly arid wasteland. So what did happen. To understand, one must consider what God is; and His son says that God is Spirit. That is the paramount consideration! Since scripture tells us that we are created in the image of God, and that God does not have a flesh body, we must rule out any and all physical changes resulting from the fall! Physical maladies may result from sin, but physical maladies are not Total Depravity, They are not depravity at all! God has never denied salvation to a human no matter how deformed or degraded that person's phyical being may be. God is no respector of man!

That leaves only the spirit. God is Spirit, we are made in his image, therefore we must be spirit. Spirit is the life of the flesh. When man sinned the first sin, his spirit became unholy. God is holy. Holy and unholy cannot coexist in the same place so man became separated from God. Even after Adam and Eve Sinned, God came to them and they were able to recognize him and hear his words. They were able to understand what he was telling them, and yes they were able to act on what they heard. Total depravity does not exist, unholiness does. That is one reason we are commanded to be holy for God is holy.

 

Ya'll can post your "out of context" scriptures all you want, but since Romans 1-3 is frequently used as proof text, let's see how much in context with the book they are. The following is topical outline of the first 5 chapters of Romans. I do not see where Paul is teaching total depravity, or an inability of man to hear and believe, when the scriptures you all have posted or referenced as proof of your total depravity doctrine. Keep in mind that Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome, one of the most sinful places ever to have existed.

SALVATION BY FAITH
I: JUSTIFICATION
A: THE RETRIBUTION OF GOD AGAINST GENTILE AND JEW
Romans 1:16,17 The theme stated
Romans 1: 18-32 The retribution of God against gentile and jew
Romans 2:1-11 The Jews are not exempt from the retribution of God
Romans 2:12-25 The Law will not save them
Romans 2:26-29 Circumcision will not save them
Romans 3:1-8 God's promises will not save them
Romans 3:9-20 All are guilty (it doesn't say that all are totally depraved)
B: FAITH AND THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD
Romans 3:21-26 The revelation of God's judgement
Romans 3:27-31 What faith does
C: THE EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM
Romans 4:1-25 Abraham justified by faith
II. SALVATION
Romans 5: Faith guarantees salvation

Romans 1:18-32 addresses Abhorant Sexual behavior (homosexuality) more than any other sin. Homosexuals claim 10% but truth indicates they make up from 2% to 3% of the population of the world. Murderers are significantly smaller segment of the world population, Frauds may exceed 10% the other conditions that Paul addresses are present in varying proportion of the total population. However I don't think there is a person alive or who every lived that had or has all of the conditions Paul describes. Therefore no one is totally depraved, but society as a whole is significantly tainted by some form of depravity, but again not Total depravity.

Guilty of Sin? Every one of us is guilty of sin, but not all totally depraved.

Afterall if we were all totally depraved, there would be absolutely no reason for God to regenerate us, we deserve worse than those in the days of Noah got. But yet, God does regenerate those who are willing to be regenerated. Our willingness to be regenerated is the result of hearing the word and believing.

Hearing is not so narrow as having to do only with the auditory senses God gave us, but it has everything to do with spiritual perception and spiritual action on our part.

All sinners? YES! All totally depraved? NOPE! No such thing!

 

You ever hear of death (Rom 5:12). You make a statement that is directly refuted by Scripture and then wonder why we reject your position. Amazing ...

You ever here of Christ? He was fully human and fully God. Again, your statement is directly refuted by Scripture.

So now you are a universalist? You should say that God never denied salvation to a human who desired it. Then you would be biblically correct.

 

There is our inability to do anything in obtaining our final salvation because it is only through Christ and His wonderful grace. [Ephesians 2:8] This is an irrefutable fact! Some allege a lack of ability to understand the ramifications of the Gospel. [John 3:16] Seldom do we have to convince a sinner that he or she is undone before Almighty God. The last call to potential elect ones-- is found in Revelation 22:17. 'And the Spirit and the Bride say come. And let him who is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Thank God there is 'free grace' because I am not yet independently wealthy. Even a 'street person' can find a few crumbs that might have fallen from the table of the Bread of life. [John 6:35 a,b,c; Luke 16:20, 21a]

 

"Just what do you think the fall did to human life/existance? Did Adam instantaneously lose his humanity, everything that God created him to be? Did he become brain dead? Did he change from the most intelligent human ever to live to be the idiot of all time?"

I've told you. YOu just aren't listenining, as is evident from teh rehtorical questionsabove. I don't suggest anythng of the sort.

BTW being the most inteligent person out of 2 is not impressive. Of all time? Where do you get that? Not the Bible.

"Nothing Happened to his humanity except a slight relocation from a beautiful Garden to possibly arid wasteland."

Pastor Larry deals with this well.

"Since scripture tells us that we are created in the image of God, and that God does not have a flesh body, we must rule out any and all physical changes resulting from the fall!"

It is not at all clear as to what the image of God in man is. But TD is not about the utter destruction o the Imagio Dei. Original Sin is the doctrine that you are ehre taking issue with. TD simply states that the Fall impacts every aspect of human nature. If you can't keep the two straight its no wonder your confused.

" Physical maladies may result from sin, but physical maladies are not Total Depravity, They are not depravity at all!"

No one has argued that physical malady can be equated with TD. You are confusing Original Sina nd TD again.

"God has never denied salvation to a human no matter how deformed or degraded that person's phyical being may be. God is no respector of man!"

That is exactly what Calvanism teaches. But no one has ver come to salvation without God's gracious call either.

"God is Spirit, we are made in his image, therefore we must be spirit."

This is not a Christian but a gnostic idea. Its heretical.

BTW nothing in your presentation of Romans 1:18-3:20 c0ntradicts TD. I and others have quoted, in context, how TD is found in the passage.

If you think that typing in an outline from a study bible is of any value then you are truly lost in this discussion.