Total Depravity

Yelsew, this is am official warning. This post is totally out of line. Name calling will not be tolerated.

IMO, I did not see a reference to your inferior intellect. I saw a reference to something with which you are not familiar, hence, the term ignorant. It is not always a negative term. It refers to a lack of knowledge, not a lack of capability. Reading through the discussion, it appears that the case has been made that you are not aware of this doctrine as it is typically defined.</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry,

That is indeed how I intended it. Thank you. I apologise for my role in this.

 

I did a little exercise of searching the HOLY SCRIPTURES for the word "DEPRAVITY". I also referred to Webster's Dictionary for a "common" definition and found: "1. Moral corruption, 2. a wicked or perverse act."

Since you are always demanding that I post scriptures, here is what I found in the scriptures: (not one time in scripture is the word "total" associated with "depravity". Is this "total depravity" a "new doctrine" you bring? It surely is not found in scripture as such.

Bible Versions that do not contain the word "depravity"
The Revised Standard Version with Aprocrypha
The New King James Version
The Darby Bible
The Webster's Bible
The Young's Bible
The Weymouth New Testament

=============================================
This list constitutes all of the references that contain the word depravity in all of the bible versions listed.

 

Why don't you try looking up "TOTAL depravity" in Webster's? It gives a fairly decent definition of the doctrine.

 

Yelsew,

Total Depravity is a THEOLOGICAL term. Try looking it up in a systematics text or a theological dictionary.

To use your logic you might as well quit believing in the Trinity since that word isn't in Scripture. Some strange new doctrine I am sure...

Will you get serious and actually study TD or not?

 

Here are a couple of (IMO) good descriptions of total depravity.

This page was no longer available when I returned to it:

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v2n2/ant_v2n2_record.html

But here's a quote from it....

This following link goes into much more depth, and provides scriptural support.

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/total_depravity.html

Here's a snippet of just the description of what TD is.

 

If that is Total Depravity, then I certainly and profoundly reject total depravity as a doctrine that is trustworthy.

Reject!, reject!, reject!

I agree that "Man cannot bring about his own redemption" or "Salvation", just as man cannot create. Man is powerless to do the saving, for man is the one in need of saving, but man is certainly not powerless to believe and be willing and that is where free will comes into the picture. Believing and willingness are the product of free will.

Man believes because he does not have experiential knowledge. For that which you know, no belief us required. God is omniscient and therefore requires no belief. In the God/man relationship, man is the only one requiring belief. Belief is a matter of the will, why would God deny him that? God in fact requires man to believe of his own free will in order to have eternal life, and to have communication with God, (else why would man pray if there is no belief in the one to whom you are praying?

We are commanded to believe
We are commanded to pray
We are commanded to trust
We are commanded to be holy
we are commanded to do unto others as we would have others do to us.
Etc.

If free will does not exist, we would not because of a depraved condition be obedient to the commands.

No, I solidly reject total depravity, it is not biblical!

 

It is always helpful to know what you are arguing against. I have read this thread and ignorance is the best term I could come up with, that is, the best one I could think up without it being deleted.

 

Yelsew,

You are correct in your post.

The Bible does not say, "When God decreed the fall of the archangel, but rather God says that 'When iniquity was found in thee . . . ' this brought about the fall of the supreme angel. This angel, as we know, was cast out of Heaven and became the Evil One. We have here a most clear indication of the free will of His created beings. This is not to say, that He did not have an eternal plan, but He allowed space for the free will.

The same is true of Adam and Eve after the fall of the anchangel. That is why we speak of Adam and Eve's temptation because they could have refrained from touching and eating of the forbidden fruit. [Genesis 3:3]

 

Medievel and Reformation Catholicism produced Calvinism by way of Augustine and Calvin's Institutes which of course would produce the Five Points of Calvinism.

The Modern Catholicism of our day is more like Arminian theology in that a human being makes his or her choice as to whether they will be saved or lost. Both Arminians and Catholics recognize the activity of the Holy Spirit in convicting and convincing men and women of their need of Christ.

We all know the 'Monstrance' displays the sacrament behind glass of special occasions for the veneration of the faithful. On a regular basis the sacrament is stored in the Tabernacle within the sanctuary. Right or wrong, the sacrament is held in very, high esteem within the Roman Catholic Church. They believe the wafer is really the Body of Christ, whereas, most other Protestants and other Christians believe that the bread is symbolic. Some feel there is a spiritual aspect of partaking of the Holy Communion.

Sorry for the side-bar.

 

Yelsew; ok,so you would not teach doctrine,but,you would willingly teach in a church thats doctrines are contray to the Word of God?

 

From Merriam-Webster on line dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
-------------------------

-------------------------
Since this is a definition specific to one set of beliefs, as it states it is, it is not a "common definition", but it does provide an understanding of the manner in which Calvinism uses 'total depravity'. Since it is specific to Calvinism, it is reasonable that those who do not hold to Calvinism would reject it outright. And since Calvinism is not the dominant or moving set of beliefs among man, it can be looked upon as a fringe belief system.

I believe that Jesus would have rejected it outright, because it flies in the face of why Jesus came to live among men. We in our "totally depraved" state could not "hear the word" and thus we would have nothing upon which to base faith, that which saves us. If total depravity renders man incapable of knowing or obeying God, then God would do to man what he did once before in the flood.

Latreia said,

The word trinity is not in the written word of God, that is true. However the concept and principle certainly is written all over the word of God. For example Jesus' baptism scene where Jesus the Son is 'joined' by the voice of His heavenly father (who is Spirit), and by the Holy Spirit appearing resembling the form of a dove. And in Genesis "Let us make man in our image", my gracious, what could that possibly mean? Image must afterall include attributes such as love, grace, mercy, and life itself lest we not be able to worship our creator, etc., and it must include certain abilities such as "knowing our creator", and possessing an inate sense of what our creator deems right and wrong.

Total depravity however is an invention of man intended to explain away the reasons why man sins. E.g., 'man is incapable of knowing or obeying God', so it must be God alone who changes man, giving him a 'new spirit' through regeneration. If that is true, why do scriptures say we must confess our sins? Why do scriptures say the result of confession is forgiveness? But most importantly, Why does Jesus harp on Believing in Him for eternal life, after all God's grace saves us, right? If saved by grace, what need is there to believe on Jesus? If 'Saved by Grace', what need is there for faith?

Total depravity rules out completely that God made us in his image, an image that includes some of the attributes that God himself possesses such as grace, a sense of justice (God alone owns Justice), mercy, love, and the ability to discern and choose the path of our own lives. Clearly, we do have that ability! Clearly we are free to choose our own destinies, lest there be no Psychiatrists, Psychologists, etc., a whole industry grown out of the inate human ability to act of his own free will.

 

Yelsew,



Let me now when you have something to back up your wild speculations.

I see though that by going to Webster's you did not actually read enough to know that it conflicts with your representation of Total Depravity. You should rethink your objections now that you have a reasonable definition of TD. After all, your objections don't apply to the actual doctrine of TD.

 

The only way total depravity can be biblical is if it does not outweigh or interfere with these two points:

1 - That Man is made in the image and likeness of God.
2 - That Man is called by God a "very good" creation (all opposed to all other creations, which God calls "good").

 

This is not true. In theology, Calvinism is far from fringe. It is mainstream; it always has been.

Jesus did not reject it outright; he rather affirmed it many times both in his public ministry and in Scripture.

Rom 3:10-12; 8:5-8; Jer 17:9; and a host of other passages demonstrate that total depravity is the uniform teaching of Scripture. Arminianism admits this. It is pelagianism that denies it.

Rom 8 makes it clear that unsaved man "cannot please God, is not even able to do so." Those are words of ability and it shows that depravity affects the will.

Becuase all these things are true.

Simply untrue. You, like many others, have misunderstood the image of God and it leads you to a wrong conclusion.

 

Oh, I get it! You would rather that I set aside my God given intellect, free will, and ability to read HIS Holy Scriptures for myself, and take up blind faith in the teachings of John Calvin...right?

So is John Calvin your only god, or one among many? Is he the one who inspired Holy Scripture? Is he the one who saves? Did he die on a cross for you?

Get your head out of the muck and mire of the 'isms' and concentrate on the only 'ity' that can save you, CHRIST-ianity, who's head is the Christ, Jesus, the Son of God.

Luther, Calvin, Armenius, Wesley, Graham, Stanley, Swindoll, the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, etc., All men of God, each having and holding to a view of God, and teaching their own persuasion about God. No different, no better, no worse than you and I. Each of them sinners in need of salvation just as you and I are. Each of them gleaning meanings from the Holy Scriptures and trying desparatly to understand. All falling short of the total picture, just as you and I do.

Your 'superiority attitude' does nothing but hinder good dialogue about the scriptures, and their content.

I am not new to the scriptures, I've been reading them for 50 years. When I was young in the scriptures I used to pick out individual verses of scripture and hold that each was the individual truth that sets me free. The longer I read the scriptures which I have read cover to cover at least 20 times, the more of the truth I receive. One very significant truth is that God created us for us to choose him of our own free will, and place our "blind trust" in Him alone, for there is no other God!

We are not to be the "toy soldiers" that Calvinism teaches. Toy soldiers cannot make choices or take individual actions, it is only the child playing with them that can place them where he wants them to be. Thus the toy soldiers do not form a relationship with the child and if the child should lose one or two, or have favorites, what is that to the toy soldier who cannot believe as he wills or take action to change his circumstances?

God's word says that God is no respector of man, he has no favorites, but he does find favor in those who have faith in Him. God's word says that any who open the door to their heart, that He will come in and sup with them. God's word says that he will in no way cast out those who come to him. God extended invitation to his Son's wedding feast to his own "friends" but his friends all had excuses why they could not come, so God opened the invitation to all who would come! I am one of the latter who will be there at that great celebration.

God's word says that all who hear the word and believe in His only begotten son, receive eternal life, and are the adopted brothers and sisters of His only begotten son, and thus are the children of God. Unlike the child with the toy soldiers, God does not have favorites as Calvinism seems to conclude.

So wake up and smell the coffee. Open your mind to all that God has to offer you.

 

Then please by all means start a new topic on "the image of God" and we'll go there and discuss it so that I can obtain a new understanding! So that you can bring me to your understanding of the image!

 

This is not "total depravity" it is instead "rejection"! Before Christ, we sin because we are under the dominion of sin! We are not relegated to "total depravity", because no matter how much sin we have in our lives, we still "know" that God exists, He implanted himself in our being at creation, and we do know inherently that we can "obey his call" by simply acknowledging that we are sinners in need of salvation. We can call out to the one who saves us, an act of our own will, and we can be redeemed when we are willing, so long as God's Grace prevails. Read on in Romans, Paul teaches how we have the ability to make those choices.

Parens and italics and bold are mine,

The natural man directs his own life according to Paul. However, the natural man refuses the spirit and therefore does not choose to live according to the spirit. Total depravity says that man cannot choose, Paul here indicates that depraved man can choose.

Parins and italics mine.

"his actions deserve"? Calvinism says that man cannot act of his free will, Jeremiah say the opposite. If man has the will to act a certain way without being under God's influence, then man has the will with which to choose belief in God and repentence from Sin. God empowers those who so choose.

 

Sorry, my post today 12/31/02 at 3:00 p.m. was in response to Abijah's question under the topic of "Here Are Just A Few Questions" p. 1 that she asked on 12/30/02 at 4:38 p.m. I'll try to be more careful next time.