Theology Club: Total Depravity

[Nang]

Good point. Inability doesn't quite mean that as completely as depravity. You depraved soul. Haha. But the gift isn't faith to believe, the gift is salvation in my observation.


Posted from the TOL App!

Salvation is trust in an alien righteousness rather than one's own. That is the righteousness of the Son of Man; imputed to the account of His children.

 

[Nang]

I like the "inability" aspect as it makes the point that no one is able to save themselves, even when God commands the sinner repent and believe. This drives home the fact that what they ought to do in no way implies that they can do so. "Ought" simply does not imply "can", despite the wishful thinking by Arminians, Romanists, etc.

AMR

You know this, and I know this, but it is a loophole falsely proffered to multitudes, by the semi-Pelagians to whom you refer.

The false message is: "With the help of God's grace, sinners can freely choose to repent and believe in Christ." This is why they do not grasp regeneration preceding faith. They think the formula is a confession of faith is first required from them and regeneration comes as a reward for their good decisions.

Only when they are rightly taught that their wills are held in bondage to sin, do they realize repentance and trust in Christ is the result that follows the regenerating power of God. John 3:3

 

[intojoy]

You know this, and I know this, but it is a loophole falsely proffered to multitudes, by the semi-Pelagians to whom you refer.

The false message is: "With the help of God's grace, sinners can freely choose to repent and believe in Christ." This is why they do not grasp regeneration preceding faith. They think the formula is a confession of faith is first required from them and regeneration comes as a reward for their good decisions.

Only when they are rightly taught that their wills are held in bondage to sin, do they realize repentance and trust in Christ is the result that follows the regenerating power of God. John 3:3

View attachment 18301


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[glorydaz]

You know this, and I know this, but it is a loophole falsely proffered to multitudes, by the semi-Pelagians to whom you refer.

The false message is: "With the help of God's grace, sinners can freely choose to repent and believe in Christ." This is why they do not grasp regeneration preceding faith. They think the formula is a confession of faith is first required from them and regeneration comes as a reward for their good decisions.

Only when they are rightly taught that their wills are held in bondage to sin, do they realize repentance and trust in Christ is the result that follows the regenerating power of God. John 3:3

No, it's proof that the Word of God has the power to persuade men to believe. The Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation. God doesn't have to regenerate us to believe....it's the work of God to persuade us to believe. And He does it very well. Faith comes from HEARING...how can we believe unless we hear....how can we hear without a preacher? Those are not just idle words.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​

Come on, Nang. Give God credit for His sharp and POWERFUL Word.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You know this, and I know this, but it is a loophole falsely proffered to multitudes, by the semi-Pelagians to whom you refer.

The false message is: "With the help of God's grace, sinners can freely choose to repent and believe in Christ." This is why they do not grasp regeneration preceding faith. They think the formula is a confession of faith is first required from them and regeneration comes as a reward for their good decisions.

Only when they are rightly taught that their wills are held in bondage to sin, do they realize repentance and trust in Christ is the result that follows the regenerating power of God. John 3:3

Well, the attempts to revise things to keep up with the changing meaning of words over time will never end. For example,

http://reformation500.com/2013/11/23/the-six-points-of-calvinism/



AMR

 

[glorydaz]

You overlook the "will not seek God" part.

To say a sinner cannot or is unable to seek God is meant to give him some moral excuse.

His not willing to seek God leaves him without excuse.

Depraved sinners are not willing to seek God, because they possess no virtue or love for God. They remain enslaved to sin, death and the devil and under the curse of enmity against God.

Only the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Men have been calling upon God from the beginning. Don't you ever read the Old Testament? The evil have always been among us, but that hasn't stopped many from seeking their Creator. That's why men are without excuse....for the things of God are clearly seen and understood by men. He created us to know Him.

Gen. 4:26
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.​

Proverbs 28:5
Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.

Heb. 11:4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.​

 

[Desert Reign]

You overlook the "will not seek God" part.

To say a sinner cannot or is unable to seek God is meant to give him some moral excuse.

His not willing to seek God leaves him without excuse.

Depraved sinners are not willing to seek God, because they possess no virtue or love for God. They remain enslaved to sin, death and the devil and under the curse of enmity against God.

I don't see how you can say in one breath that being unable to seek God would give a person a moral excuse AND that his unwillingness to seek God leaves him without an excuse when the only reason why a person is willing to seek God is because God predestined him so to do, all other things being equal.

What you are struggling to do is to whitewash the Calvinist position by imagining that wicked people deserve eternal punishment because of their wickedness. This is not consistent with the core doctrine of total (=universal) depravity. That doctrine states that no one deserves salvation. No one. The person who seeks God still has no excuse. Seeking God does not make him any more righteous than the one who doesn't. In Calvinism, righteousness is 100% imputed.

What I think, though, that you are doing is whitewashing it to make it more palatable for yourself to believe. In your heart, you can't bear the thought that fundamentally God is unjust by only choosing to save a few and not all and you try to convince yourself that those who are not chosen are condemned because of something you can blame on them. Unfortunately this just doesn't work. To put it simply: all those reprobate are unable to choose to seek God because they are fallen in nature. No possibility exists for them to seek God (= they are unable to seek God). It has nothing to do with whether they are bonking their neighbour's wife when her husband is out at work or whether they devoted their entire life to the service of the poor.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

No, it's proof that the Word of God has the power to persuade men to believe. The Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation. God doesn't have to regenerate us to believe....it's the work of God to persuade us to believe. And He does it very well. Faith comes from HEARING...how can we believe unless we hear....how can we hear without a preacher? Those are not just idle words.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
​

Come on, Nang. Give God credit for His sharp and POWERFUL Word.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
​

Mat 4:4 But He answered, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." [HCSB]
​

<DIR>
So this verse is in perfect agreement with my understanding of Calvinist Theology, and it's extra good quote because Jesus quoted this scripture to Lucifer.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the ideas and thoughts of the heart. [HCSB]

Another scripture in perfect alignment with Calvinist Theology. Thanks for making the points for us.

</DIR>

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Well, the attempts to revise things to keep up with the changing meaning of words over time will never end. For example,

http://reformation500.com/2013/11/23/the-six-points-of-calvinism/



AMR

So should I start using C A L V I N instead of T U L I P?

Comprehensive Brokenness
Absolute Sovereignty
Lifegiving Union
Verified Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Never-Ending Adoption

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

SOBG,

I would go this route:

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/

AMR

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

SOBG,

I would go this route:

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/

AMR

I have a problem with his summary:

In conclusion, we can ask again, "How many points?" Surely there are more than five. The Reformed faith includes reference to total inability, unconditional election, limited efficiency of Christ's satisfaction, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, not as the sum total of the church's confession but as elements that can only be understood in the context of a larger body of teaching including the baptism of infants, justification by grace alone through faith, the necessity of a thankful obedience consequent upon our faith and justification, the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the so-called amillennial view of the end of the world. The larger number of points, including but going beyond the five of Dort, is intended, in other words, to construe theologically the entire life of the believing community. And when that larger number of points taught by the Reformed confessions is not respected, the famous five are jeopardized, indeed, dissolved —and the ongoing spiritual health of the church is placed at risk. <!-- Content -->

To pick a point, the bible clearly states we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is an unmerited gift from God. Justification is imputed to us thru Jesus' work. Our good works have been set aside by God, the Originator of them.

Another point, Jesus wasn't limited. He saved 100% of the Elect. God saves who He chooses. Nothing we can do changes that, or we lessen God's sovereignty.

I couldn't read the whole piece at this time. Those are just some quick thoughts from skim reading and the summary at the end. I may be in disagreement with some Reformed Theology points as defined here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have a problem with his summary:



To pick a point, the bible clearly states we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is an unmerited gift from God. Justification is imputed to us thru Jesus' work. Our good works have been set aside by God, the Originator of them.

Another point, Jesus wasn't limited. He saved 100% of the Elect. God saves who He chooses. Nothing we can do changes that, or we lessen God's sovereignty.

I couldn't read the whole piece at this time. Those are just some quick thoughts from skim reading and the summary at the end. I may be in disagreement with some Reformed Theology points as defined here.

I think you have misunderstood his words. You both are in agreement. By "limited sufficiency" he means limited atonement--only for the elect.

I do not understand your concern about justification with the author. He clearly states it is by all the five solas. Can you elaborate?

AMR

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I think you have misunderstood his words. You both are in agreement. By "limited sufficiency" he means limited atonement--only for the elect.

AMR

Probably if I had read the whole article instead of skimming, I would have understood better what he meant. Thanks.

 

[Nang]

I think you have misunderstood his words. You both are in agreement. By "limited sufficiency" he means limited atonement--only for the elect.

AMR

I agree with SOBG and find the revised language worrisome.

"Sufficiency" is not synonymous with "Atonement."

We are justified by faith alone. We are saved by grace through faith. Two different teachings.

And I am a fan of his teachings on the Amil view, but, as you know, I do not like revisions or additions to how the doctrines of grace have been historically taught.

N.T. Wright does this kind of thing . . .

 

[intojoy]

Do Calvinists have to love the non elect?

 

[mmstroud]

Works for me. The TULIP acrostic appeared around the first decade of the 1900s so we need not be locked into it and I can think of other ways of remembering the five points of the doctrines of grace. Unfortunately, not a few persons do not take the time to dig a bit deeper to understand the meanings of the terms being used. Confusion then abounds. Internet forums are of no help since rhetoric often substitutes for personal study. As the saying goes, we are entertaining ourselves to death. In my opinion no one should be permitted to assert "Calvinists believe this or that" until they affirm they have read and carefully studied the Westminster Confession of Faith. Rather they honestly ask sincere questions versus presuming to "know" something about Calvinism.

AMR

I think the acrostic creates confusion for most non-Calvinists. While useful at its inception, our language has morphed as it always does. The words may technically have the same dictionary definitions but just take the word 'depraved'. It conjures up in the mind all sorts of mad men and lunatics. We don't picture ourselves that way.

Someone somewhere at one time or another suggested that Total Depravity could be considered Radical Corruption. It actually may have been R.C. Sproul. (If I'm repeating a point already made, forgive me for jumping in late. I read through all of this once but it's been more that a day and I have really, really poor retention... ) His point was that there is no part of us that hasn't been touched by the fall. This is the one thing I always try to remember as I'm wrestling with a point of doctrine and tempted to take a dogmatic stand where my footing may be a little tenuous...

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I think the acrostic creates confusion for most non-Calvinists. While useful at its inception, our language has morphed as it always does. The words may technically have the same dictionary definitions but just take the word 'depraved'. It conjures up in the mind all sorts of mad men and lunatics. We don't picture ourselves that way.

Someone somewhere at one time or another suggested that Total Depravity could be considered Radical Corruption. It actually may have been R.C. Sproul. (If I'm repeating a point already made, forgive me for jumping in late. I read through all of this once but it's been more that a day and I have really, really poor retention... ) His point was that there is no part of us that hasn't been touched by the fall. This is the one thing I always try to remember as I'm wrestling with a point of doctrine and tempted to take a dogmatic stand where my footing may be a little tenuous...

Our English language has morphed quite a bit in my lifetime. New words have been added, existing words have changed. I didn't expect the reaction to the word choice, but the concept. How much is misunderstanding of the word meaning, and how much is a reaction to the Calvinist concept?

I am comfortable with R. C. Sproul's interpretation of T-U-L-I-P. Radical Corruption seems synonymous to Total Depravity to me. If it helps explain the biblical concept better to non-Calvinists, I have no problem with the change.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Do Calvinists have to love the non elect?

We don't know who the elect and non-elect are. And even if we did, following Jesus' lead on the matter is best, e.g. love thy neighbor, etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think the acrostic creates confusion for most non-Calvinists. While useful at its inception, our language has morphed as it always does. The words may technically have the same dictionary definitions but just take the word 'depraved'. It conjures up in the mind all sorts of mad men and lunatics. We don't picture ourselves that way.

Someone somewhere at one time or another suggested that Total Depravity could be considered Radical Corruption. It actually may have been R.C. Sproul. (If I'm repeating a point already made, forgive me for jumping in late. I read through all of this once but it's been more that a day and I have really, really poor retention... ) His point was that there is no part of us that hasn't been touched by the fall. This is the one thing I always try to remember as I'm wrestling with a point of doctrine and tempted to take a dogmatic stand where my footing may be a little tenuous...

I agree that little ditties as memory aids, like TULIP, can lead to much confusion given how the meaning of words morphs with time. We are better served by just understanding the doctrines of grace rather than trying to assign simple words to their full meanings. Nothing wrong with memory aids, but when these aids start to become matters of debate we are losing sight of the forest for the trees.

As I have said in other posts, the TULIP acrostic was a 20th century addition to aid in memory, it is not something the church has codified in a confession. Arguing about what simple words serve as substitues for the doctrines of grace is straining at gnats. Anytime anyone uses "TULIP" they should be obliged to explain in detail exactly what it means to avoid all the meaning of words issues. Given that, the choice of succinct descriptors for each of the doctrines of grace is a matter of personal taste.

AMR

 

[mmstroud]

Our English language has morphed quite a bit in my lifetime. New words have been added, existing words have changed. I didn't expect the reaction to the word choice, but the concept. How much is misunderstanding of the word meaning, and how much is a reaction to the Calvinist concept?

I am comfortable with R. C. Sproul's interpretation of T-U-L-I-P. Radical Corruption seems synonymous to Total Depravity to me. If it helps explain the biblical concept better to non-Calvinists, I have no problem with the change.

In the case of non-Calvinists, it might be safe to say they object to anything that smells of Calvinism, whatever term is used. :chuckle: I wouldn't necessarily advocate changing the acrostic or term. Rather I think it's good for us to be aware of the possible misunderstandings.

I agree that little ditties as memory aids, like TULIP, can lead to much confusion given how the meaning of words morphs with time. We are better served by just understanding the doctrines of grace rather than trying to assign simple words to their full meanings. Nothing wrong with memory aids, but when these aids start to become matters of debate we are losing sight of the forest for the trees.

As I have said in other posts, the TULIP acrostic was a 20th century addition to aid in memory, it is not something the church has codified in a confession. Arguing about what simple words serve as substitues for the doctrines of grace is straining at gnats. Anytime anyone uses "TULIP" they should be obliged to explain in detail exactly what it means to avoid all the meaning of words issues. Given that, the choice of succinct descriptors for each of the doctrines of grace is a matter of personal taste.

AMR

This is kind of where I'm leaning. I'd rather explain the five points than explain the acrostic, especially to someone who's going to push back and more than likely will not have the same interpretive method with regard to language in general and Scripture specifically.