T - Total Depravity

[Skandelon]

I'd like to unpack each of the points of Calvinism in a civil manner:

Would Calvinistic (reformed) believers here agree with this definition:

"a state of corruption due to original sin held in Calvinism to infect every part of man's nature and to make the natural man unable to know or obey God" -Merriam-Websters​

Personally, I feel the concept of 'Total Inability' goes beyond the biblical revelation. The concept that all of mankind is decreed by God to be born unable to willingly respond to His appeals to be reconciled is not biblically supported, IMO.

What say you?

 

[Van]

Here Calvinism redefines what being dead in our sins means. To be spiritually dead means to be separated from God. Thus, if we are together with God we are alive. Now when we were dead, i.e. separated from God we were in a sinful state. God is holy and therefore nothing unholy can be with God. We could do nothing to obtain the righteousness of God, i.e. to become holy and blameless and righteous, because all our works of righteousness were as filthy rags.

But what Calvinism does is add to this biblical truth, and say not only are we unable to reconcile ourselves to God, we are unable to desire reconciliation or the righteousness of God.

They take the verse, "no one seeks God" (Romans 3:11) and add to it "at any time." However the Bible is clear no one seeks God when they are sinning, and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Thus all men, both the Jews and Gentiles are under sin. Therefore by the works of the Law, no flesh will be justified.

So the actual Biblical doctrine is limited spiritual ability, we can understand the milk of the gospel, but may not accept it fully. And by the practice of sin, we can harden ourselves to the point we lose our ability to understand the gospel, like the first soil of Matthew 13.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'd like to unpack each of the points of Calvinism in a civil manner:

Would Calvinistic (reformed) believers here agree with this definition:

"a state of corruption due to original sin held in Calvinism to infect every part of man's nature and to make the natural man unable to know or obey God" -Merriam-Websters​

Personally, I feel the concept of 'Total Inability' goes beyond the biblical revelation. The concept that all of mankind is decreed by God to be born unable to willingly respond to His appeals to be reconciled is not biblically supported, IMO.

What say you?

It is really pointless to debate with someone who repudiates the plain explicit statements of scripture as you do.

1. There is NONE that seeketh after God VS your interpretation that there are only SOME that do not seek after God - Psa. 14:2, Rom. 3:12,19-20 "all the world....every mouth"

2. NO MAN CAN come to me VS your interpretaton that there are just SOME that cannot.

3. Romans 3:9-18 is concerning all Jews and Gentiles or "ALL THE WORLD" and "EVERY MOUTH" (vv. 19-20) vS your interpetation that it merely refers to SOME.

4. Romans 8:7-8 is concerning all "in the flesh" VS your interpretation that it refers to only some "in the flesh"

5. Romans 8:7 "not subject.....neither indeed can be" vs your interpretation that it can be subject and can be.

Your whole basis of interpretation is explaining away the scriptures that directly and explicitly oppose your views or pitting scriptures against scriptures. So it is pointless to debate you.

 

[webdog]

It is really pointless to debate with someone who repudiates the plain explicit statements of scripture as you do.

1. There is NONE that seeketh after God VS your interpretation that there are only SOME that do not seek after God - Psa. 14:2, Rom. 3:12,19-20 "all the world....every mouth"

2. NO MAN CAN come to me VS your interpretaton that there are just SOME that cannot.

3. Romans 3:9-18 is concerning all Jews and Gentiles or "ALL THE WORLD" and "EVERY MOUTH" (vv. 19-20) vS your interpetation that it merely refers to SOME.

4. Romans 8:7-8 is concerning all "in the flesh" VS your interpretation that it refers to only some "in the flesh"

5. Romans 8:7 "not subject.....neither indeed can be" vs your interpretation that it can be subject and can be.

Your whole basis of interpretation is explaining away the scriptures that directly and explicitly oppose your views or pitting scriptures against scriptures. So it is pointless to debate you.

So much for having a civil discussion.

 

[JonC]

I think that there are problems with the definition. I believe that man is fallen, and that man will not be inclined to righteousness unless drawn by God. Depravity, in my understanding, has more to do with the will – but not that man cannot turn to God, instead that he won’t. I think the definition attributes man’s unwillingness to his inability to will the good, but I am not sure that we can reason it out to the degree that is presented in Calvinism. There is nothing preventing man from turning to God except that man will not turn to God. It is a fallen nature – but that nature is descriptive of men rather than prescriptive. Perhaps this thread will clarify the issue for me, or change my mind.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is really pointless to debate with someone who repudiates the plain explicit statements of scripture as you do.

1. There is NONE that seeketh after God VS your interpretation that there are only SOME that do not seek after God - Psa. 14:2, Rom. 3:12,19-20 "all the world....every mouth"

2. NO MAN CAN come to me VS your interpretaton that there are just SOME that cannot.

3. Romans 3:9-18 is concerning all Jews and Gentiles or "ALL THE WORLD" and "EVERY MOUTH" (vv. 19-20) vS your interpetation that it merely refers to SOME.

4. Romans 8:7-8 is concerning all "in the flesh" VS your interpretation that it refers to only some "in the flesh"

5. Romans 8:7 "not subject.....neither indeed can be" vs your interpretation that it can be subject and can be.

Your whole basis of interpretation is explaining away the scriptures that directly and explicitly oppose your views or pitting scriptures against scriptures. So it is pointless to debate you.

Thank you...I have no interest in dialog with these people. Let them consider us heretical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So much for having a civil discussion.

What's the point?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I think that there are problems with the definition. I believe that man is fallen, and that man will not be inclined to righteousness unless drawn by God. Depravity, in my understanding, has more to do with the will – but not that man cannot turn to God, instead that he won’t. I think the definition attributes man’s unwillingness to his inability to will the good, but I am not sure that we can reason it out to the degree that is presented in Calvinism. There is nothing preventing man from turning to God except that man will not turn to God. It is a fallen nature – but that nature is descriptive of men rather than prescriptive. Perhaps this thread will clarify the issue for me, or change my mind.

So you believe man to be carnal?

 

[JonC]

So you believe man to be carnal?

If you mean physical as opposed to spiritual, yes.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you mean physical as opposed to spiritual, yes.

I mean both.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For Gas & s, here is a paper on Total Depravity the wolf pack can rip to shreds & feed on.....have fun :laugh:

http://gracebbc.dyndns.org:81/jdtotdep.html

 

[JonC]

I mean both.

I mean calling men carnal - you asked me if I thought men were carnal, I believe we are by nature carnal as in we are of the flesh and not the Spirit (sorry I wasn't clear).

 

[Revmitchell]

I'd like to unpack each of the points of Calvinism in a civil manner:

Would Calvinistic (reformed) believers here agree with this definition:

"a state of corruption due to original sin held in Calvinism to infect every part of man's nature and to make the natural man unable to know or obey God" -Merriam-Websters​

Personally, I feel the concept of 'Total Inability' goes beyond the biblical revelation. The concept that all of mankind is decreed by God to be born unable to willingly respond to His appeals to be reconciled is not biblically supported, IMO.

What say you?

I am not a Calvinist but I hold to Total Depravity.

I disagree that it was necessarily decreed by God. Their view of God's sovereignty is problematic.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I mean calling men carnal - you asked me if I thought men were carnal, I believe we are by nature carnal as in we are of the flesh and not the Spirit (sorry I wasn't clear).

OK, let me clarify.....could a person "think" he is a Christian (operating off that premise) but not be a real believer? So you know, I believe that most people who walk around all day telling you they are Christian, fall under that category.....what I'd call a carnal state, they are aptly labeled carnal Christians.

 

[JonC]

OK, let me clarify.....could a person "think" he is a Christian (operating off that premise) but not be a real believer? So you know, I believe that most people who walk around all day telling you they are Christian, fall under that category.....what I'd call a carnal state, they are aptly labeled carnal Christians.

Yes. Christ indicates that many who call him “Lord, Lord" and are active in the work of the kingdom are not actually known by him (e.g., Matthew 7). These people acknowledge Christ (and I believe the emphasis on “κύριος” – Lord - to mean that they acknowledge or have a cognitive recognition of him as God), and by all appearances they are saved. Yet Christ never knew them (I believe this to mean that he never had a relationship with them). Those outward fruits that we look towards to demonstrate an inward faith may not be a sign of true redemption (although a lack of may demonstrate an unsaved state). So I do agree with you that many will believe they are saved, but are in fact not redeemed.

 

[webdog]

Thank you...I have no interest in dialog with these people. Let them consider us heretical.

Yet you continue to do so. Go figure.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yet you continue to do so. Go figure.

Old habits die hard I'm afraid. I should watch the Giants, loose:BangHead:

 

[JonC]

Old habits die hard I'm afraid. I should watch the Giants, loose:BangHead:

Nah...nothing else to do. Might as well visit antiquated debates in search of enlightening the those still divided by the issues....and play like there's something new to add to what's already been said :smilewinkgrin:

Come on EW&F- come out and play! :love2:

 

[Rippon]

Their view of God's sovereignty is problematic.

Let me guess. You think we emphasize God's sovereignty and minimize man's responsibility? Actually we promote both. But I don't see how any Christian has the right to minimize the biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God.

 

[JonC]

Let me guess. You think we emphasize God's sovereignty and minimize man's responsibility? Actually we promote both. But I don't see how any Christian has the right to minimize the biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God.

I don't see how any Christian has the right to minimize any biblical doctrine. That would be just as bad as magnifying one doctrine over and beyond what is presented in Scripture.