What the Word of God says on Total Depravity

"Bring up a child in the way he should go, and he will not soon depart from it."

Doesn't that short little scripture lay the responsibility to teach a child about God on the parent? Doesn't that imply that spiritual awakening in a person is the result of the teaching one gets as a child? Teach a child in "the way" and he'll not depart from it.

HOW CAN ONE WHO IS TOTALLY DEPRAVED RECEIVE FROM THE PARENTS?

HOW CAN ONE WHO IS DEAD IN SPIRIT LEARN ANYTHING FROM HIS PARENTS?

THE WISE PARENT TEACHES THE CHILD THE WORD OF GOD, BECAUSE THE WISE PARENT KNOWS THAT "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "TOTALLY DEPRAVED", EVERY HUMAN HAS THE CAPACITY TO HEAR AND TO BELIEVE.

BELIEVING IS REGENERATION!

 

There is no contradiction. To say that all mankind is the same and that the Jews are different is only a contradiction if you miss the point I already made that the discussion is about two different things. You and I are the same; You are and I are also different.

You need to start thinking through this stuff Yelsew. Saying things like this show that you are not fully engaged here.

Why don't you come and find out??? You might be surprised ...

 

The truth of your claims?? The fact that I won't take time to repeate something I already said to someone who has no interest in hearing it shows that total depravity does not exist?? That is a great bit of logic there.

The reason I won't repeat it is 1) I don't have time to get involved in it; 2) you are not interested in hearing it. Why should I take time from something I need to be doing to tell you something that 1) you are not interested in and 2) you can look it up if you are interested?

No, I am not. But this is not one of those issues. Long ago, I dealt with this issue. Sorry that you disagree. I really am. But I am not going to take time right now to repeat myself for someone who has no interest in it. You will not be objective with it. You have a position already decided and my response will not sway that.

When I come across an issue I am not familiar with or haven't studied, I typically don't comment or comment very little and ask questions.

Boy, this is certainly true ... It has no relevance to my stance however. With 8100+ posts, you can deduce that I am not shying away from topics ... But there comes a point where my priorities of daily life have to take precedence over repeating myself for someone who is not interested in genuine understanding of what I have to say.

 

Larry,

Allow me to point out a few things that seem quite apparent to any one following this thread.

(1) You say you don't want to address me because you don't have time.

*snip* In the time you took to respond to this last post you could have responded to my question, so that is obviously a diversion tactic.

(2) You say you don't want to address me because I'm not interested.

Bologna! I wouldn't be here if I weren't interested and I certainly wouldn't take time to press you on this point if I weren't interested. If you mean by this that I won't change my views based upon your answers then you may be right, but since when has that stopped you from addressing people on this board? You responded to Yelsew, do you really think he is going to change his views? Do you really think he is more "interested" in hearing you than I am? What about everyone else you continually respond to with the same old answers you always give?

What if we all played by this same logic? "I just won't answer anyone who I don't think will agree with me." or "I will never readdress an issue i've aleady addressed on this board." The board would immediately shut down with this logic! This is clearly just another diversion tactic and everyone following this thread knows it!

(3) You say that you won't answer because I could look up your answer in a sea archives. I did look and didn't find any responses that you gave to this question. I'm not saying its not there, I just couldn't find it. I did find however that you always seemed to abandon the discussion when it went pass your realm of being able to revert to your typical pat answers.

Revealing.

Afraid you might actually learn something new Pastor?

From Gina: I understand this can be a heated topic, but take a few deep breaths before you post again please!

[ February 24, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Pastor Larry,
I need not attend your congregation to see that what you are saying is double-talk.

To say that the the gentiles and the Jews are the same is clearly a non-understanding of truth. Out of six children, I was, according to the other five, my mother's favorite. I suppose that is why I received greater discipline from her. The other five treated me differently than they treated each other. Truly, my mother did not have a favorite, she loved each of us equally in the manner that God loves all mankind equally, but God does "treat" the Jews differently than he treats the gentiles, they are therefore percieved as being different. And truly when God hardens the Jews, that is the only group that he hardens. When he hardened the Pharoah, it was truly the pharoah that was hardened. When he temporarily dethroned ol' king Neb, it was not the whole royal house that was dethroned.

When one looks for "the elect" in scripture the only truly elect of God are the Jews, for they are HIS chosen people.

God does not love only "the elect", He loves the world, and gave His son for the world so that the world through him might have life everlasting. Why do the scriptures NOT say God loved "the elect" so much that he gave His only son for "the elect" so that through him "the elect" might have life"?...Simply because the scriptures DON'T say it, nor mean it that way. But Calvinism does! And that is why Calvinism is WRONG!

 

My friend,

I cannot address that issue sufficiently in the time it takes to write this post. If you think I can, then you don't understand what it takes to answer a question. I am not going to give surface answers. Your objections can be very easily shot donw ... but not in two minutes. You have understand in light of the whole Scripture.

I am not diverting from anything. I am making a clear distinction in my priorities. You and this board are not my priorities. You are my diversion. I have actual ministry related things that deal with my church to do. This weekend we are having a couples conference that I am in the midst of preparing for so that we can try to strengthen marriages and put some families back together. That outweighs repeating an answer to a question for someone who is not truly interested in what I have to say. I am preaching in the book of Hebrews, which takes a tremendous amount of preparation. Suffice it to say, you are not high on my priority list. I don't say that to be rude, but merely to say that your comments about my diversion are unfounded. If other people agree with you, then that is fine. AS I said before, I think my 8100 posts speak volumes about the amount of "dodging" that I do of issues. At the present time, I cannot justify spending a lot of time on this.

My response to Yelsew was very brief, and intentionally so. So long as Scripture rightly interpreted in not our foundation, we will not make progress. And right now, I don't have a lot of interest in not making progress.

I have answered people who don't agree with me. I have repeated myself on many occasions. Those are false charges. I have never abandoned a discussion when it went past my "pat answers." In fact, I have rarely withdrawn from one. My biggest struggle is the temptation to have the last word (which is why I am writing this now).

I am not frightened in the least to learn anything. I welcome learning. That is what I do for a living. I do not think that you are showing a real desire to learn. I could be wrong. It just doesn't seem like it to me. If you are willing to learn, then get out some books and do some research. I am not the only source of truth (as you well know). There are many people who have taken the same position I have that have dealt with that verse and with others. You seem to think that you have come up with a smoking gun that no one has ever thought of. That simply is not true. These doctrines have long been defended from all their attacks. You may not agree with the defense, but to pretend like it hasn't been made is wrong.

Bottom line: Cool off a little bit, don't attack me because I have other priorities. If you are interested in learning, then go after it.

 

Gina,

I'm sorry if I appeared to be "heated." I wasn't. I admit that my use of the word "Bull" could have given that impression and for that I apologize. But Larry's reasons for not addressing me are pure non sense wouldn't you agree?

 

In spite of all your protestations concerning Larry's percieved shortcomings, your shouting does nothing to make your position any more desirable as far as manifesting the fruits of the Spirit.

Secondly, a person that is in thier natural state, one of the flesh, can still do things outwardly that appear to be obedient, either to parents or to God. But outward conformity hardly means a state of inward regeneration.

And regeneration precedes faith. And it is only these persons (those whom have been regenerated) who can hear and savingly repent and believe.

 

Skan, quick response to "When someone says, "Why would a Calvinist even bother to witness."

The reason? We are commanded to witness by the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. And thats more than enough of a reason to do so.

Blessings

 

Some great info on the doctrine of Total Depravity:

Total depravity (total, that is, in the sense that it touches everything) is not incompatible with the exercise of the natural virtues and the promotion of civil righteousness. Unregenerate men are still endowed with conscience, and the work of the law is written upon their hearts so that in measure and at points they fulfil its requirement (Rom. 2:14f.). The doctrine of depravity, however, means that these works, though formally in accord with what God commands, are not good and well-pleasing to God in terms of the full and ultimate criteria by which his judgment is determined, the criteria of love to God as the animating motive, the law of God as the directing principle, and the glory of God as the controlling purpose (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; cf. Mt. 6:2, 5, 16; Mk. 7:6-7,; Rom. 13:4; 1 Cor. 10:31; 13:3; Tit. 1:15; 3:5; Heb. 11:4, 6).
The New Bible Dictionary

QUESTION 5: What is man brought under by the fall?
ANSWER: By the fall, man is brought under God’s wrath and curse. “And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:3). “As many as are of the works of the law” (that is, all who are under the covenant of works, as all unbelievers are), “are under the curse” (Gal. 3:10).
Vincent, Thomas, A Family Instructional Guide, Commentary on the Confession


"QUESTION 10: What are the internal and spiritual miseries which men are liable unto in this life by the fall?
ANSWER: Men by the fall are liable: 1. To submission to the devil, to be led about by him at his will. “And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will” (2 Tim. 2:26). 2. To judiciary blindness of mind, and a reprobate sense. “God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear” (Rom. 11:8). “Because they liked not to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:8). 3. To judiciary hardness of heart, and searedness and benumbedness of conscience. “Whom he will he hardeneth” (Rom. 9:18). “Having their conscience seared as with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:2). “Who being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph. 4:19). 4. To vile actions. “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: and they burned in their lust one towards another, working that which is unseemly” (Rom. 1:26, 27). 6. To strong delusions, and belief of damnable errors. “God shall send them strong delusions, to believe a lie; that they all might be damned that believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:11, 12). 6. To distress and perplexity of mind, dread and horror of spirit, and agonies of despair, through the apprehension of certain future wrath. “There remaineth nothing but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversary” (Heb. 10:27).
ibid


"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with God,(3) and so became dead in sin,(4) and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.(5)

(3) Gen. 3:6–8; Eccl. 7:29; Rom. 3:23. (4) Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1. (5) Titus 1:15; Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10–18.

Naturally, man depends upon the providential sustaining power of God; but as a moral and religious being he depends upon the intimate and loving communion of God’s Spirit for spiritual life and right moral action. Therefore—

1. By this sin man must have instantly been cut off from this loving communion of the Divine Spirit. This must have been under any constitution the natural effect of sin. And under that covenant relation into which man had been introduced in the gracious providence of God at his creation, it was specifically provided that the commission of the forbidden act should be followed by instant death; that is, instant penal exclusion from the source of all moral and spiritual life. See ch. 7., s. 2. Gen. 2:17. Therefore—

2. The principle of spiritual life having been withdrawn as the punishment of that first sin, our first parents must have instantly lost their original righteousness; their allegiance had been violated, their faith broken, and love could no longer dominate in their hearts. And thus—
3. They must have at once become dead in sins and wholly corrupt. And
4. This corruption must have extended to all the faculties. It is not meant that Adam by this one sin became as bad as a man can be, or as he himself became afterward. But as death at the heart involves death in all the members, so the favor and communion of God being lost,
Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Westminster

Original Sin and Total Depravity
Scripture diagnoses sin as a universal deformity of human nature, found at every point in every person (1 Kin. 8:46; Rom. 3:9–23; 7:18; 1 John 1:8–10). Both Testaments describe sin as rebellion against God’s rule, missing the mark God set for us to aim at, transgressing God’s law, offending God’s purity by defiling oneself, and incurring guilt before God the Judge. The moral deformity is dynamic: sin is an energy of irrational, negative, and rebellious reaction to God. It is a spirit of fighting God in order to play God. The root of sin is pride and enmity against God, the spirit seen in Adam’s first transgression, and sinful acts always have behind them thoughts and desires that one way or another express the willful opposition of the fallen heart to God’s claims on our lives.
Sin may be defined as breaking the law of God, or failing to conform to it, in any aspect of life, whether thought, word, or deed. Scriptures illustrating different aspects of sin include Jer. 17:9; Matt. 12:30–37; Mark 7:20–23; Rom. 1:18–3:20; 7:7–25; 8:5–8; 14:23 (Luther said that Paul wrote Romans to “magnify sin”); Gal. 5:16–21; Eph. 2:1–3; 4:17–19; Heb. 3:12; James 2:10–11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17.
“Original sin,” meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (it comes from Augustine), but it does bring into focus the reality of sin in our spiritual system. Original sin does not mean that sin belongs to human nature as such; “God made man upright” (Eccl. 7:29). Nor does it mean that the processes of reproduction and birth are sinful; the uncleanness associated with sexuality in the Law (Lev. 12; 15) was typical and ceremonial, not moral. Rather, “original sin” means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth, in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; it is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin.
The phrase “total depravity” is commonly used to make explicit the implications of original sin. It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total in principle, although not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be). No part of us is untouched by sin, and no action of ours is as good as it should be. Consequently, nothing we do is ever meritorious in God’s eyes. We cannot earn God’s favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost.
Total depravity includes total inability, that is, being without power to believe in God or His word (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7, 8). Paul calls this universal unresponsiveness a form of death; the fallen heart is “dead” (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13). As the Westminster Confession (IX. 3) explains, “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.” To this darkness the word of God alone brings light (Luke 18:27; 2 Cor. 4:6).r
Luder Whitlock, Jr., executive director; R.C Sproul, general editor, New Geneva study Bible

Should be all the biblical support you (Skan and Yelsew) would ever need ehhh?

 

Prove it!. Don't just drop in and say "this can easily be shot down" and expect everyone to believe you. Back up what you say. That IS what this board is about isn't it?

I can easily shoot down Total Depravity! Want proof, go look it up. This is just silly! This is a discussion board, so discuss or go away, but don't pull this nonsense where you claim to have the answers but just not the time to give them, that's obviously just diversion tactics.

If that is true, then with all due respect, why are you still here? Get to work. When I have priorities I tell people, "Sorry, I'll be out a few days but I'll get back to you on that one."

If what you are telling me is true then why have you posted about 50 posts in the last 5 days? Face it, you just don't know how to deal with this issue, you never have.

Again, you speak as if others you engage on this board are "rightly interpreting" the Scripture and you are making progress with them. This is so bogus! You don't think we can all see right through this?

Well prepare to be tempted because you are not getting the last word as long as you pull this nonsense.

I can bring up the thread where you abandoned ship if you would like. Just say the word.

You are. Read my posts with Russell55 and Ian and you will see I'm quite reasonable in dealing with difficult passages and learning from them.

Believe me, I have and continue to do so. How about you? How much of these issues have you really studied? Usually people who have studied a particular issue are hungry to discuss it with others, its apparent you are not there so how can anyone believe you have honestly dealt with these issues?

A smoking gun? No more so than those on your side think you have come up with the perfect irrefutable doctrine. And if its so easy to find a scholar who has addressed these issues point me toward him, I'm not apposed to reading someone else's work. I have found that most, if not all, Calvinistic scholars tend to gaze over these issues just as some Arminian scholars gaze over difficult texts for them, but if you've got a scholar who answers this question I will be glad to read it. In fact, I look forward to it.

I'm sorry if I appear to be heated. That may just be the nature of the written word. I just speak my mind when it is clear someone is using diversion tactics and there excuses don't add up. I know it is getting a bit hot for you because your in the hot seat being accused of making false claims, but I assure you I'm as cool as I can be. I have nothing to hide and I'm perfectly willing to deal with any issue you bring my way. I may have to take time off as my priorities allow, but I will address you.

 

This is the difference between Calvinism and all others!

So regeneration preceeds faith?
Scriptures say it is faith that is regeneration!

 

I agree. Thanks for proving my point concerning "pat" answers.

 

Nope. No biblical support to say that men cannot respond in faith to the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel message.

Keep looking, you may find it eventually.

 

Hey Skan, if you think that my obedience to a biblical command, and my pointing out that command to you is a pat answer, then I have to wonder exactly what sort of convulutions you must go through in order to try and "understand" what it is the Bible is commandng. In the case of evangelism, Jesus simnply said:
Matt 18:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” NASB

If that is "pat", and my obedience is based on such, so be it. Jesus said it, I need to do it, end of the story.

I do not see you dealing with my other "pat" answer though, do I?

 

ROFLOL!!!!! Talk about double talk!! Talk about "pat answers"!! Talk about hypocrisy!! You whine and whine about wanting biblical support, and then when you get it, you fail to interact with it in the slightest bit, and think you can dismiss it with a simple response like this! No wonder Pastor Larry doesn't spend much time dealing with you guys!! Can't say I blame him for being very careful about how much time he devotes to giving you guys the kind of answers you say you want, for you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth, asking for something and then after getting it, saying that’s not what you wanted after all.

Nope. No biblical support to say that men cannot respond in faith to the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel message.

Keep looking, you may find it eventually. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

John,

Chill. I said I agree with you. God's command is enough of a reason. I was a Calvinist too and I still don't have a problem with that response, but you took my quote out of the context of my discussion with Larry. I was proving a point that Calvinists have no problem repeating answers that they are fimiliar with, ie "pat" answers. He doesn't have one for my question so he used diversion tactics. I called him on it and your post just proved my point.

Thanks.

 

Be careful the moderators might *snip* you and tell you to calm down, oh no wait never mind you're on their side...they just do that to those who put the heat on them.

If you think what I have said is untrue then all you have to do is simply provide one verse that says something to the effect of, "men cannot respond in faith to the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel message."

Just one.

 

Skandelon, if you have a problem with a moderator or feel you are being treated unfairly please take it to an administrator via pm.
I deleted a single word that some on here would complain was offensive. I assure you it had nothing to do with sides.
Now, back to the topic of the thread!
Gina

 

I was just poking fun Gina. No offense intended. That's why I winked.

Out of curiosity is there a list of words we shouldn't use? Honestly I didn't think the word "bull" was out of line. I don't want to disobey the guidelines so if there are a list of unacceptable words and phrases that would be helpful. Thanks, and have a great day.