Featured doctrines of grace ?

Here is J.I. Packer’s explanation of Total Depravity:

“It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God’s eyes. We cannot earn God’s favor, no matter what we do, unless grace saves us, we are lost."

What part of J.I. Packer's doctrine of Total Depravity do you find so appalling?

 

Just answer the question.

 

Yes, I can see that you have no idea what these things mean. I’ll try to help, not only with the meaning of those words with which you struggle, but also with the doctrine. Hopefully, if you apply yourself, when we are done this will sound less like nonsense and you will be able to better understand the concepts discussed.

Typically when people speak of a “moral nature” they are speaking of our nature as it applies to right and wrong, good and evil where as “spiritual nature” is more implicit towards our relationship with God. Moral is often viewed as the external while spiritual often refers to the internal.

Degree can mean extent, you are right. But you need to read a little more carefully, with discernment, and pay attention to context. By “degree” he is referring to a point, as in progression or retrogression. Total Depravity does not mean we are depraved to the fullest degree (we are not as evil as we can be). By “extent” he is speaking of how much depravity encompasses, or extends. Sin has affected every aspect of our nature.

When you get into reading God's Word, you will find some illustrations (Jesus talks of things like vines, trees, weddings, etc. but to illustrate or explain something else). For example, trees bear fruit. Our natures bear good fruit, or they bear bad fruit. Flesh yields the things of the flesh, and the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. I don’t want to overwhelm you here, but to keep it short – Scripture presents us as sinners, and sins as manifestations of our sinfulness.

The word “meritorious” means “showing merit” (from Latin meritōrius, earning money).If you have read Scripture and have yet discovered the concept (either affirmed or denied) therein, then perhaps you need to spend a bit more time there than here.

Your history is a bit off, brother. Pelagius taught that men were justified based on their merit, mankind is unaffected by the fall (Adam’s transgression could only affect Adam), and libertarian freewill – that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from God’s grace) to obey God and to merit salvation. Men need illumination (knowing what to do), not conviction, guidance, or any other work of the Spirit.

Now, if you were arguing that Arminians would have agreed with both Piper and Packer in terms of total depravity, you may have a point. But Arminianism holds to total depravity.

I know that this has been a lot to take in, particularly as you seem unfamiliar with not only the topic, word definitions and history, but also with Scripture. I hope at least a little light has been shown your way. Keep on studying and before long, you will know a bit more what you are talking about.

 

You believe he was righteous (he stood justified before God; as we are in Christ) instead of devout and God fearing?

 

You make a couple of good points, brother. But much of what you say here is meaningless to the topic, and much is logical fallacy. I will, out of respect for the effort of your reply, work through this one. BUT as and if we continue, please stick to the topic.

Total Depravity does, indeed, imply and state men sin. The doctrine attributes to man a state of sinfulness whereby his righteous works, his good deeds, are as “filthy rags” in the sight of God. And it ascribes to men a nature that cannot please God. Calvinism does not deny, by the way, a freedom of the will. Scripture denies libertarian free will, but never the freedom of the will. Our inability is, in fact, a matter of the will.

I admit that I took liberties to argue rather than engage what I took as insult, and in so doing offered a few characterizations.

But insofar as the fallacies I quoted above, you do not know me. So you have no way of knowing that I have read Pelagius and Augustine. This was a foolish statement, brother.

The reason I believe you misstated Pelagius’ heresy is that he did not teach a reliance on God towards salvation beyond illumination as he rejected the idea of “original sin” at the start. I believe Pelagius over responded to what he saw as exaggeration in doctrine (sinfulness imputed and considered apart from sins), and I believe that his words were exaggerated by his opponents. Consider his words here:

"I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, is not necessary not only for every hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavor to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment."

The contention, however, is more along the lines of:

"That we are able to do good is of God, but that we actually do it is of ourselves."

That said, the topic here is not Pelagius. It is the five points of Calvinism. Let’s stick to the topic. My point is that anyone holding the presuppositions required to make it to these five points pretty much agree in the first one.

I agree, but don’t. You are better than that.

I never said you were. I don’t know what you believe, just as you do not know what I believe

This is where your discussion should have led you, rather than where you journeyed. But beyond that, you should have (and may have) realized by now that the Five Points of Calvinism (the topic here) were explanatory and not the ultimate topic itself. They addressed the Five Articles of the Remonstrants. But ultimately the issue was, at its foundation, one of providence and predestination. What I am trying to say is that the Five Points of Calvinism can only be debated among those who hold what the Canons of Dort assume as common belief. You are not qualified to debate the points as you reject the theological system in which it resides (you disagree with doctrines that form the foundation upon which the points are derived).

I realize this, but don’t. You are better than that.

I did not intend for my words to be “nasty”. Perhaps sarcastic, but not nasty. Your posts ventured into the provocative and I thought you were soliciting a certain response so I provided it. If I misjudged your post, then you have my apology.

 

I provided the scripture. You ignored it.

The scriptures are what my understanding of biblical Soteriology are built on. You have failed to show they do not.

I have taken the scriptures regarding Soteriology and believed them. You, on the other hand, deny they mean what they say and say what they mean.

Once again you prove to the whole forum that you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not a proponent of replacement theology.

Yes, we all know that, but once again you prove you don't have a clue what we Particular Baptists believe.

Yes, again, the terrible grammar aside, we all know that.

 

I did read the whole chapter. Peter is talking about salvation being extended to the Gentiles, not man being righteous so that he can believe. We are righteous "in Christ".

I disagree that men have a righteous of their own leading to salvation. And you have yet to provide Scripture to the contrary.

 

I agree. God was drawing him and he needed the gospel to be saved. This doesn't mean that he sought God without the work of the Spirit.

I think we can agree here, as most denominations hold to concept of depravity. Even those who reject the "total" part typically deny salvation as dependent on whatever part they feel unaffected by sin (the part no one seems able to name).

I don't think "unconditional" election will fare as well. While total depravity is the reason shared my many, election is a solution that divides people.