Total Depravity

[Faith alone]

Tim, I agree that PISTEWS (genitive - PISTIS - "faith") cannot be the antecedent of TOUTO - "this" (what "this" is referring back to), but it also cannot be referring back to XARITI ("grace").

Saint Paul said it a different way: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Eph 2:8-9) Notice the subject matter is “grace”. Grace by nature is not from us. It is a gift of God. Right of entry into this grace is “through faith.” Faith is our responsibility. God will not make us believe.

(Some have construed Paul’s words to mean that even our faith is not from ourselves. However, he was referring to grace as not from ourselves. Sure there is an element where faith is a gift of God too, however, it is gift only in the sense that man cannot believe unless he “hears the Word of God.” Without God speaking, man cannot believe anything about God. But God has spoken and is still speaking through His Spirit.)

While it is true that grammatically "faith" (PISTIS) cannot be the "gift of God" that is being referenced in Ephesians 2:8, 9 "grace" (XARITOS) cannot either - for the same reason. Here's the grammatical breakdown:

In Greek we can usually tell what a pronoun is referencing, since a pronoun has "number" (singular or plural), "case" (nominative-subject, genitive-descriptive, accusative-direct object, etc.) and "gender" (masculine, feminine and neuter). In general, a pronoun agrees with its antecedent (what it's pointing to) in number and gender. It doesn't need to agree in case.

So the Greek has here...
TH GAR XARITI ESTE SESWSMENOI DIA PISTEWS KAI TOUTUK EX hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON;
Gar - postpositive - "for" -acts like it's the 1st word in clause
TH XARITI - "by grace" - dative/feminine/singular
ESTE - "we are" - "are we"
SESWSMENOI - perfect passive nominative/masculine/plural participle - "having been saved" - modifies main verb - "we are"
DIA - preposition, with accusative means - "through"
PISTWES - Genitive/feminine/singular - "faith" - descriptive
TOUTO - demonstrative pronoun - key to this whole thing - nominative/neuter/singular
OUK - particle - "not"
EX - preposition - "out", "out from", "by means of", "as a result of"
hUMWN - pronoun - genitive/plural/2P
QEOU - genitive singular - "of God"
TO DWRON - nominitive/neuter/singular - "gift"

So this says something like,
"For by grace you are having been saved through faith and THIS not as a result of yourselves; [it is] a gift of God..."

The "it is" is supplied to help the reading here... that is quite common in Greek and no big deal. But the demonstrative pronoun ("this/that"/etc.) absolutely must agree with its antecedent - which some say is "faith." (PISTEWS-PISTIS). So then since TOUTO is singular, its antecedent must also be singular - no problem there. And since TOUTO is neuter, its antecedent must also be neuter... problem there.

PISTEWS is feminine. If the pronoun was intended to point to "faith" then hAUTH would have been used instead (the feminine form of "this").

So one thing we know - "this" (TOUTO) does not refer to "faith" (PISTEWS).

You suggest that it points to "grace" (TH XARITI), but that couldn't be true either, since it also is feminine.

So what does it point to? Well, we do have something here it could be pointing to, and this is how most interpret this... "the participle - "having been saved." Now the participle actually is modifying the main verb "we are." It also is not "feminine. But sometimes in Greek when a general concept is being pointed to a neuter pronoun is used... the only concept here is that of "being saved." The actual noun "salvation" was not used. So what Paul is saying here is that the "salvation" (SWTHRIA) which as never mentioned here by name is a gift of God.

If Paul meant either "grace" or "faith," he would have used a feminine pronoun. By using a neuter pronoun he makes it clear that the procress of being saved by grace through faith is a gift of God.

FA

 

[npetreley]

That's a great post. I'll have to check the Greek for myself before I'm fully convinced, because the post has some errors in it (este is in the second person plural, not third), but it's true that "that" is neuter.

However, strictly speaking, your conclusion needs to be modified just a little.

"the procress of being saved by grace through faith is a gift of God"

It would be more accurate to separate it all out into its logical components without modifying it in any way (by adding "process"). It is also important to retain the perfect passive.

"it is by grace you are having been saved through faith"

"and this [having been saved by grace through faith] is not of yourselves"

 

[Me4Him]

not willing that any should perish.

broad is the way that leds to destruction and many there be that go therein.

Here we have a "Contradiction" of verses "IF" it's interpreted according to ""Soveriegn will".


"IF" God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then it's quite obvious that "Sovereign will" isn't the only deciding factor with God, and a "VARIABLE" must be involved "IF" the two verses are to be "Reconciled" and the "contradiction" resolved.


I use the word "VARIABLE" because the deciding factor can be either "For" or "Against" Salvation.

God/Jesus made it possible for the whole world to be saved, not willing that any should perish,

"IF" they would believe.

Scripture tell us that Belief/Unbelief is the "VARIABLE" that God considers before granting/withholding "GRACE" and it's the only way, according to scripture, the two verses can be reconciled to eliminate the "seemly" "Contradiction".

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
"IF" God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then it's quite obvious that "Sovereign will" isn't the only deciding factor with God, and a "VARIABLE" must be involved "IF" the two verses are to be "Reconciled" and the "contradiction" resolved.

If God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then why did He create them in the first place knowing that they would perish?

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
"IF" God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then it's quite obvious that "Sovereign will" isn't the only deciding factor with God, and a "VARIABLE" must be involved "IF" the two verses are to be "Reconciled" and the "contradiction" resolved.

If God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then why did He create them in the first place knowing that they would perish? </font>[/QUOTE]"WHY" would God create people for no other reason but to condemn them to hell,

does scripture "Confirm that" or does it say God/Jesus wasn't willing for any to be condemned and provided a way so that "NONE" would have to perish, "IF" they believed????

God requiring "FAITH" of the person before he'll save is denied under calvin's doctrine, as a matter of fact, it's "totally eliminated" under the doctrine of "sovereign will".

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
"WHY" would God create people for no other reason but to condemn them to hell,

does scripture "Confirm that" or does it say God/Jesus wasn't willing for any to be condemned and provided a way so that "NONE" would have to perish, "IF" they believed????

But He knew before He created them that they would not believe in spite of all that He planned to do for them, so why did He create them anyway?

God requiring "FAITH" of the person before he'll save is denied under calvin's doctrine, as a matter of fact, it's "totally eliminated" under the doctrine of "sovereign will".

This is not true. God's will is that no one will be saved apart from faith.

 

[iamwhatiam]

I marvel at the fact that so many Christians struggle with the Doctrine of Total Depravity.

I beleive Christ when he was quoted in John 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him."

These words are not mine, they are spoken by the mouth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

What is the total inability of man?

It is not in the lack of the necessary facultites, otherwise fallen man would cease to be responsible for sin. Fallen man possesses the same threefold nature, of spirit and soul and body, as he did before the Fall.

No part of man’s being was cut off, though each part was corrupted by sin. Man died spiritually, but death is not extinction of being, as spiritual death is alienation from God (Ephesians 4:18) and the spiritually dead to God is one very much alive and active in the service of Satan.

 

[iamwhatiam]

Chosen to Salvation

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

"There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God's elect are "chosen to salvation": Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to "salvation" itself that God has chosen us. Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who "chose unto salvation", decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth. Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle express this - "we are bound to give thanks always to God for you. brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation", etc. Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself." Arthur Pink - circa 1900

Who can give strong argument against these words?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I will admit...

I was totally depraved before the Lord so mercifully saved my sinsick soul. But, I was not totally unable to respond when the Lord called on me.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by whatever:
If God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then why did He create them in the first place knowing that they would perish?

Because man's will trumps God's will.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by iamwhatiam:
I marvel at the fact that so many Christians struggle with the Doctrine of Total Depravity.

I marvel even more at the people who call themselves Arminians yet deny total depravity. Arminius believed in total depravity and said so in his writings.

Arminius simply reasoned away the debilitating effect of total depravity by saying that, although it takes God's grace for us to be able to choose, we are still free to choose.

In the end, Arminius describes God as "not willing that any should perish", yet unwilling to give man any more grace than is necessary to make a decision. It's up to man (in this bizarre state of total depravity plus a sprinkle of grace) to decide his eternal destiny.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
I was totally depraved before the Lord so mercifully saved my sinsick soul. But, I was not totally unable to respond when the Lord called on me.

Then you were not totally depraved in the sense that both Calvin AND Arminius describe total depravity. Both agreed that total depravity means the inability to respond on our own.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I like what timtoolman said.

If man is totally unable to respond to God's calling without the Spirit first bringing life into him, why would God have to harden man's heart as He did with Pharaoh?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If man is totally unable to respond to God's calling without the Spirit first bringing life into him, why would God have to harden man's heart as He did with Pharaoh?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Paul uses the story of Pharaoh to illustrate that God does as He pleases with people, according to His own good pleasure.

Nowhere does the Bible say God hardened the heart of Pharaoh because, if He didn't, Pharaoh might have chosen to be saved without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

I started a thread about this very type of weak foundation for free will. I can think of no weaker foundation for any doctrine than to argue "Why would God have done this or that? It doesn't make sense to me that God would do this or that."

God's ways are so much higher than our ways that it is seems downright silly to me that anyone should draw ANY conclusions based on what we think God would or would not do, or worse, should or should not do.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by iamwhatiam:
I marvel at the fact that so many Christians struggle with the Doctrine of Total Depravity.

I marvel even more at the people who call themselves Arminians yet deny total depravity. Arminius believed in total depravity and said so in his writings.

</font>[/QUOTE]I do a little "Marveling" as well.

Calvinist have all the symptoms of "oldtimers" diesese.

They can't remember one verse long enough to compare/reconcile it to the next.


Ro 9 is interpreted as if it was the only verse/doctrine in scripture describing God's attitude toward mankind.

The greatest "WEAKNESS" to Calvin's doctrine is it's inability to admit/explain verses that seem to contradict the other, that I haven't seen from any who believe Calvin.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If man is totally unable to respond to God's calling without the Spirit first bringing life into him, why would God have to harden man's heart as He did with Pharaoh?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Paul uses the story of Pharaoh to illustrate that God does as He pleases with people, according to His own good pleasure.

</font>[/QUOTE]Was it "God's Pleasure" to destroy "Pharaoh", or did "Pharaod" only "REAP" what he "SOWED"??

What's so hard to understand about: not willing that "ANY" should perish

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Calvin places the blames on God for "Pharaod's evil", just so God can "show his wrath", but God doesn't need to "show his wrath" to prove to man he is God, man reaps what man sows, and God has no pleasure in seeing "ANY" perish.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
What's so hard to understand about: not willing that "ANY" should perish

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Calvin places the blames on God for "Pharaod's evil", just so God can "show his wrath", but God doesn't need to "show his wrath" to prove to man he is God, man reaps what man sows, and God has no pleasure in seeing "ANY" perish.

But God knew before He created the lost that they would not believe in spite of all that He planned to do for them, so why did He create them anyway?

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by whatever:
If God isn't willing for any to perish, yet many do, then why did He create them in the first place knowing that they would perish?

Because man's will trumps God's will. </font>[/QUOTE]If thats the way you want ot look at it Npetreley. That means that God's will was thwarted over and over again in the Bible. When He dealt with Isreal, with the prophets and disciples. Many times He told them, even verbally what His will was, yet they disobeyed.

 

[Timtoolman]

There seems to be an element missing that keeps God from being the author of sin. It could be a concioius or free will, or not. However calvinist just leave it, IMHO, as God is the author of sin, whether by direct or indirect cause. That cannot be.
And again if we allow calvinist to dictate what depravity means then they win. If we fight that with what the Bible says depravity is and isn't then calvinist have nothing.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
What's so hard to understand about: not willing that "ANY" should perish

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Calvin places the blames on God for "Pharaod's evil", just so God can "show his wrath", but God doesn't need to "show his wrath" to prove to man he is God, man reaps what man sows, and God has no pleasure in seeing "ANY" perish.

But God knew before He created the lost that they would not believe in spite of all that He planned to do for them, so why did He create them anyway? </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't this view the same with calvinism?

It's one thing to create someone and want them to love and follow you, and having perfect knowledge of whether they will or not, and it's another thing to create someone NOT to love and follow you, and for the sole purpose of destruction. This is barbaric.