Total Depravity Exposed

[webdog]

Notice what Jesus said and what Jesus did not say. Jesus did not say "no one will come to Me". Rather Jesus said "no one CAN come to Me".

Convenient you left off UNLESS The Father draws them. All that is needed is the Father's drawing. John 12:32 gives us who's included in this drawing...

All Jesus was saying here is that even evil people are good to their children. He is not saying that lost men can do any good that will aide them in salvation nor is He saying that they can do good that God will value (Is 64:6).

Nice try though.

So God doesn't value an evil man treating his child good? I'm not talking about counting that act as righteousness...but He doesn't value good? Why, then, are they going to be judged on EVERYTHING done in the body...both GOOD and bad?

==That does not happen. Jesus said very clearly that "all that the Father gives to Me will come to Me" (Jn 6:37).

Jesus also doesn't say all that are drawn are given, what you seem to be implying.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Notice what Jesus said and what Jesus did not say. Jesus did not say "no one will come to Me". Rather Jesus said "no one CAN come to Me". Unsaved people do not have the abilty to come to Christ apart from this unique drawing of the Father. O people may attend church (etc) but no one comes to Christ in a saving way unless the Father draws them. Who does the Father draw to Jesus? Those He has given to Jesus (Jn 6:37, 17:2, etc).

I too believe in the drawing of the Holy Spirit. But what you say above must be reconciled with another scripture from John that says: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me

What does all mean? It means the Father/God/Holy Spirit draws everyone. It doesn't say "..will draw only the elect".

Look at Paul's words in Romans 3:10-18 (a passage I did mention). No person seeks after the true God. Left to their own freewill ALL lost people reject the true God. Not only can't they come to Christ apart from the drawing of the Father they will not come to Christ apart from the drawing of the Father. The only way people seek after the true God and come to Christ is if the Father draws them. Apart from that nobody CAN (or will) come to Christ. So people are trapped on both ends (can't and won't).

Remember now that I believe the God draws everyone to himself so this doesn't present a problem to me. All we are left with is the trap of 'won't'.

Jesus said very clearly that "all that the Father gives to Me will come to Me" (Jn 6:37).

And who did the Father give to Christ? Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Man's belief in Christ seems to be an essential thing.

Originally Posted by menageriekeeper
Can we really say from a scriptural point of view that God must not have really chosen him after all?

==If a person rejects Christ and dies and goes to hell then they were not elect (chosen). None of those the Father has given to Jesus (the elect) will perish (Jn 6:37-39, 2Pet 3:9).

Here we are again, who did the Father give to Christ? The answer is still the same as I quoted above: "Everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." And I agree that those who are saved will never perish.

What did Jesus call them? "EVIL". All lost men are "evil", enemies of God, and children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). All Jesus was saying here is that even evil people are good to their children. He is not saying that lost men can do any good that will aide them in salvation nor is He saying that they can do good that God will value (Is 64:6).

Nice try though.

I'm not sure what you think I was trying to say. What you say and what I believe in this case is the same thing. Any man, before he believes on Christ for his salvation, would fit the above description, you and me included.

 

[npetreley]

You folks have taken this WAY off-topic.

 

[webdog]

Not really. It still fits in with total depravity...

 

[npetreley]

Not really. It still fits in with total depravity...

The thread is not about whether Total Depravity is true. It's about the fact that even Arminius and his followers believed in Total Depravity and regeneration before faith. Any less would have been considered heresy.

It is inaccurate to make statements about Total Depravity and regeneration before faith as if it is unique to Calvinism and is not part of Arminianism.

 

[Martin]

Convenient you left off UNLESS The Father draws them. All that is needed is the Father's drawing. John 12:32 gives us who's included in this drawing...

==I did not leave that off, in fact that was my whole point. Nobody can or will come to Christ without first being drawn by the Father. As for John 12:32, I think we have been here before. If you are saying that the drawing in John 6:44 and 12:32 are the same then you are promoting universalism. Why? Notice what Jesus said about those who are drawn by the Father in John 6:44...

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day"

Those who are drawn in John 6:44 will be raised up by Jesus on the last day. In the context this raising is clearly a raising to life (6:40,45). So however you understand John 12:32 you must acknowledge that it is not speaking of the same type of drawing as mentioned in John 6:44. If you don't acknowledge that then you are forced into universalism.

Jesus also doesn't say all that are drawn are given, what you seem to be implying.

==Yes He does.

In verse 37 it is those the Father gives Jesus who come to Jesus and recieve eternal life (see also John 17:2). In verse 40 it is those who believe who Jesus will raise to life on the last day (see also John 5:24). In verse 44 it is those who are drawn to Jesus by the Father who are raised to life (eternal life). In verse 45 it is those who have been taught by the Father who come to Jesus (salvation). So, unless you are willing to rip the whole thing apart and put divisions where no divisions exist, those the Father gives to Jesus come to Jesus because the Father draws them to Jesus. Jesus does not cast them away or allow them to be lost again and will raise them up to life on the last day (Jn 6:37-45). This is the plain sense meaning of the text. There is no way, using the text of John 6:37-45 alone, to say that verses 37,40,44 are talking about different things.

Now, are all who are drawn given? Yes! Why? Because all who are given to Jesus come to Jesus (vs37) and nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them to Jesus (vs44) and all who are drawn (vs44) are raised to life. So yes, all who are drawn are given.

So God doesn't value an evil man treating his child good? I'm not talking about counting that act as righteousness...but He doesn't value good?

==God said that all of their good deeds are like dirty rags. How does God view ANY good deed done by a lost person: As dirty rags. Does God like the fact that they are "good" to their children? I'm sure He would rather them be good to their children then bad but their being good to their children earns them no brownie points with God. Their good deeds, all of their good deeds, are nothing but dirty rags in God's eyes.

Why, then, are they going to be judged on EVERYTHING done in the body...both GOOD and bad?

==What verse are you using for this? God says all their righteous deeds are nasty in His sight. In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus says He will look at lost people, who thought they were Christians but were not, and will say that their good works were "lawlessness". Nothing a lost person can do will be valued by God. They cannot please God.

 

[Martin]

I too believe in the drawing of the Holy Spirit. But what you say above must be reconciled with another scripture from John that says: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me

What does all mean? It means the Father/God/Holy Spirit draws everyone. It doesn't say "..will draw only the elect".

==Yes, it strongly implies that. As for John 12:32, if you are saying that the drawing in John 6:44 and 12:32 are the same then you are promoting universalism. Why? Notice what Jesus said about those who are drawn by the Father in John 6:44...

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day"

Those who are drawn in John 6:44 will be raised up by Jesus on the last day. In the context this raising is clearly a raising to life (6:40,45). So however you understand John 12:32 you are forced to acknowledge that it can't be speaking of the same type of drawing as mentioned in John 6:44. If you refuse to acknowledge that then you are forced into some form of universalism.

I am not, at least not here, interested in how you understand John 12:32. However if you understand the drawing in John 6:44 and in John 12:32 as being the same then you end up with some real serious theological problems.

Remember now that I believe the God draws everyone to himself so this doesn't present a problem to me. All we are left with is the trap of 'won't'.

==So you believe that all are raised to life? I doubt you do but that is where you are ending up. All who are drawn are raised to life. John 6:44.

And who did the Father give to Christ? Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Man's belief in Christ seems to be an essential thing.

==Man's coming to Christ, man's faith in Christ, comes AFTER the Father's giving the man to Christ and drawing that man to Christ.

Notice:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" -Jn 6:37

What comes first? The Father gives the person to Jesus then the person comes to Jesus. That is, they believe and are given eternal life because the Father has given them to Jesus.

"even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life" -Jn 17:2

Who does Jesus give eternal life to? Those the Father has given Him.

A person's choice to come to Jesus (believe) is a result of the work of God (giving them to Jesus, drawing them to Jesus, etc).

 

[npetreley]

Since this has turned into another Calvinism/Free-willism thread, I'd like to request that it be closed.

 

[TCGreek]

Well, now I guess they will have an ax to grind against Arminianism, since not even Arminius will dare take all the glory away from God.

Since Arminius didn't take away ALL the glory from God, did he keep some somehow in his theology? Are you sure you wanted to make such a statement?

 

[npetreley]

Since Arminius didn't take away ALL the glory from God, did he keep some somehow in his theology? Are you sure you wanted to make such a statement?

It's hard to say. Arminius espoused a really strange view of soteriology, IMO. It seems to me he left no room for free will, and then simply wedged it in there and said it was the most important part of the process. It was almost like sleight of hand.

 

[Martin]

It's about the fact that even Arminius and his followers believed in Total Depravity and regeneration before faith. Any less would have been considered heresy.

==Very true. Often what passes as Armianism, or even evangelicalism, today is really semi-pelagianism. In fact I think most Christians today are semi-pelagianists in their theology. They are not semi-pelagianists in their prayers and practice but they are semi-pelagianists in their theology (which often does not match their practice).

 

[TCGreek]

==Very true. Often what passes as Armianism, or even evangelicalism, today is really semi-pelagianism. In fact I think most Christians today are semi-pelagianists in their theology. They are not semi-pelagianists in their prayers and practice but they are semi-pelagianists in their theology (which often does not match their practice).

I usually say that we are semi-pelagian by default. sad to say but you are so right.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I did it Npet. My apologies. I'll resist posting again.

 

[skypair]

==So?

Rather than rehash your dogma, let's try this:

Show me how your paradigm "sola, sola, sola" works. From the point of the gospel being preached, what happens to the "elect" and how. On one thread I've heard "efficacious calling" -- regeneration -- faith. I agree with the last 2 so just get into the "nuts and bolts" of "efficacious calling" for me. To what extent does election and "efficacious calling" require that we participate in order to be born again/regenerated?

skypair

 

[skypair]

It takes a change of heart, by God in order for that person to want to be saved.

What is the heart, Dale?

And what does "change of heart" consist of? Repentance? Who repents, God or me?

But as you say, and I also agree --- it takes a change of heart before someone can be saved. The issue is what is the heart and who changes it? And if God changes it monergistically, how would we know it?

We have faith maybe? If you have faith in Christ you are elect --------- but how about this: if you are elect you will have faith in Christ. Suddenly salvation comes by circular, subjective reasoning, no?

As you can tell, I eagerly await your answers.

skypair

 

[skypair]

God works in the heart of the elect in such a way as to bring them to Christ.

Martin -- this is the part that needs explaining on your part. Free will has a very simple, logical understanding of this --- we hear, believe (or not), repent, are regenerated and saved, and are given faith. The change of heart is the Holy Spirit convicting our heart such that we repent (change our heart).

Now please --- I've been asking a lot of Calvinists to explain this to me --- how does God change the heart?


Also:

They are not semi-pelagianists in their prayers and practice ...

What does this mean??

skypair

 

[Martin]

Free will has a very simple, logical understanding of this --- we hear, believe (or not), repent, are regenerated and saved, and are given faith. The change of heart is the Holy Spirit convicting our heart such that we repent (change our heart).

==Free will cannot, and does not, explain any of that. According to Scripture man does not, of himself (freewill), seek after God. It is God who does the drawing and not man. So I see the freewill view as being unBiblical and therefore very unlogical.

Now please --- I've been asking a lot of Calvinists to explain this to me --- how does God change the heart?

==I am not sure what you mean. If you are asking me how God goes about bringing a person to Himself I would point to many of the same things you would (preaching, teaching, friends, evangelists, etc). However if you are asking how God changes the heart of the person I would simply say He makes it new. He takes away the heart of stone and gives the person a heart of flesh.

Also: What does this mean??

==Semi-pelagianists, in their prayers, will often pray for God to draw a person to Himself (ie...to save them). In their prayers they often sound like Calvinists but in their theology they are semi-pelagian.

 

[Martin]

Rather than rehash your dogma

==I am not rehasing "dogma" (whatever that is). I am simply going to the Word and letting it speak for itself. My position is clear. However it is your position that is questionable. You still have not explained how you can claim that John 6:44 and 12:32 are talking about the same type of drawing without backing yourself into universalism. You still have not explained how lost people, dead in sin, and who do not seek God on their own, actually do seek God.

To what extent does election and "efficacious calling" require that we participate in order to be born again/regenerated?

==I point you to John 6:37 again:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me"

Those who are elect, those who the Father therefore draws to Christ, will come to Christ (saving faith). How do we participate? We believe in Christ. This is not done because we took the first step it is done only because God worked in our hearts and drew us to Christ.

 

[David Lamb]

I've even heard a Calvinist say that Calvinism IS the gospel, DL.

I'm sure you have. But did you have the opportunity to ask him or her what was meant by that statement? If you did, and the reply was something like: "Calvinism is the gospel because Calvin taught it" or "Calvinism supercedes or adds to what we have in the bible," then I would agree with you, that person is wrong. And if that is what he or she meant, you won't find many Calvinsts agreeing.

And of course we all can find our theology in scripture -- but it is the whole counsel of God from Truth is discerned.

Exactly! Calvinists would agree with that.

Neither the words together nor the concept are found. Total depravity finds NOTHING good in unregenerate man and yet Christ said, "Anyone who gives a cup of water to one of these little ones will in no way lose his REWARD." God only rewards good works, friend. And man is capable of doing them and, therefore, is capable of receiving the gospel unto salvation.

skypair

The concept surely is found. Just two examples. Isaiah 64.6-7:

6 ¶ But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.
7 And there is no one who calls on Your name, Who stirs himself up to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us, And have consumed us because of our iniquities.​

Romans 3.10-18:

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
13 "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips";
14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."​

So what about the cup of cold water? Mark says "in My name" and Matthew "in the name of a disciple". So it is surely more than the mere act of giving someone a drink, but giving it because that person is a follower of Christ. And in giving it to someone because he was a Christian, the giver would show love to the Saviour himself.

 

[skypair]

==Free will cannot, and does not, explain any of that. According to Scripture man does not, of himself (freewill), seek after God. It is God who does the drawing and not man. So I see the freewill view as being unBiblical and therefore very unlogical.

You don't see it because you focus on the verses that do not demonstrate free will. How about "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," etal.? Since it is NOT natural/instinctive to have one's heart changed, there is a thought process involved, martin, that you are ignoring.

However if you are asking how God changes the heart of the person I would simply say He makes it new. He takes away the heart of stone and gives the person a heart of flesh.

That's the "Pandora's box" that you can't open, isn't it? It's magical, isn't it? If you would even got a peek inside, Calvinism would be dead.

Why? Because changing the heart is very simple. It's a simple on the one hand and hardening it is on the other. On the one hand, you make the heart a gracious, desireable offer, losing your own life -- on the other, you keep offering the heart an unreasonable condition to salvation, giving up your life. Same offer! Different thoughts!

==Semi-pelagianists, in their prayers, will often pray for God to draw a person to Himself (ie...to save them). In their prayers they often sound like Calvinists but in their theology they are semi-pelagian.

Why do Calvinists pray that? God doesn't change His mind. Seems to me it is Calvinists that pray like semi-Pelagians.

skypair