Total Depravity...

come on man, others need to know!

 

I would like to see Scripture where man is born "left to themselves"...

 

In what frame of refrence, cause you lost me?

You are meaning:
That man is not born left to himself? But if he were left to himself, man would have no hope.
On that premise I agree.

or

That some men are born "left to themselves", and some are not.
To that I would disagree based on the scriptures, as the Lord has given light in differing measure to all men but enough light as to lead any man to God who did not reject it.

 

So where did the good stuff come from webdog that caused you to do what cannot be done? How can one come unto Him unless one's soil is good? How can one produce good before regeneration when the seed is snatched away by Satan?

Do you mean there is an intermediate step between being dead and being alive webdog? A gap of sorts where man can make up their own minds? A place where the fallen nature is not at emnity with God and not in accord with Him either. A Lagrange spot spiritually speaking?

Fickle ain't yer? The heart is regenerated prior to faith. That's where the good soil that causes a produce comes from. Where did yours come from?

john.

 

Total depravity, by definition, is total inability since "total" includes the will. If it "total depravity" does not include the will, then it is not "total." It is "partial."

That was the point of my definition. Sin has affected the mind, will, and emotions. All are corrupt. Every part of man, including his will, is corrupted by sin. "Cannot please God," "are unable to please God," "cannot hear my word" seems too difficult for me to get around.

 

On the subject of "left to themselves" reminds me of the passages where God gives them over to their own depravity .

Ro. 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts ...
Ro.1:26.... God gave them over to sinful lusts ...
Ro. 1:28 ... he[God] gave them over to a depaved mind ...
Acts 7:42 But God turned away and gave themover to the worship of the heavenly bodies ...
Ps. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices .

 

This is a misrepresentation of Arminianism

With respect to J.D., I am what has come to be called a "Reformed" (or Reformation) Arminian. Some refer to it as "classical Arminian." Titles aren't important, what we affirm about TD is.

Reformed Arminians have NO disagreement with Refromed Calvinists in saying that man is "Totally Depraved." No area of a human's life is not affected by -- corrupted by -- sin. Man is fallen, and completely and wholly unable to affect, evoke or otherwise contribute to his/her own salvation.

Thus, God indeed MUST intervene. HOW God intervenes then becomes the main issue on this point. Calvinists believe God intervenes via predestionation, causing regeneration which produces faith. Thus, man does not freely choose, but is chosen by God already, and is irreversably "elect." This state of being chosen and elect is "irresistible."

Reformed Arminians believe that Ggod intervenes via Prevenient Grace -- that grace by which He enables man to believe -- but does not force man to do so. Thus, man is graciously enabled to accept the grace of God by faith (also a gift of God inherent within humans), though he may chose NOT to accept God's gift of salvation. In this case, the "Elect" are those whom God foreknows will believe.

THere is NO difference between Reformed Believers -- Arminian OR Calvinist -- with regard to TD (Genesis 6:5; John 3:16-18; Romans 3:10-18, 23).

JDale

 

The first one.

 

The part I put in bold is a strawman. Almost all calvinist believe that man has to choose. As far as being free... they are not free in the libertarian sense. They choose according to the circumstances that God in His providence puts in place. Again, Calvinist believe that man chooses... but not until the Holy Spirit has given them a new nature that will result in the affirmative choice. All this occurs in more of a logical order rather than a measurable amount of time. Of course we believe that those chosen by God before the foundation of the world are those who are regenerated and then freely choose.

 

THe concept of "Total Depravity" does not necessitate that man is totally uninfluenced by God, nor that man does not in some way do "good" things. Cyprian, a Bishop in the Early Church, made the statement that "all man's abilities to do good are derived from God."

There are two elements that render this possible -- (1) ALL humans, though fallen, STILL bear the Image of God within them. Certainly it is marred, scarred and distorted, but it still may, in some circumstances, reflect the nature of God in some small way, much like a broken mirror may still reflect a true visage of one who looks into it. (2) Common Grace is still abundant to the world, and may still in some sense draw those who don't know Christ to "do good" or "glorify God" in their works.

This by no means suggests they are saved, but it DOES demonstrate God's sovereignty and grace to the WHOLE of the world -- not merely to the "elect."

JDale

 

They don't "betray" the claim. They believe in prevenient grace, an enabling grace given to all men. Those who deny TD are more accurately pelagian or semi-pelagian. Most non-cals probably fit more closely into one of those categories.

 

It would be next to those scritpure that specifically say things like, Trinity, Theology, Rapture, ext...

But I would sum it up in John 3:16.
For God so loved...He gave...whosoever believes...has everlasting life.

For did not send His Son into the World to condemm the World but that the World through Him might be saved.

YOu know as well as I these scriptures, and that if God left us alone then we would NEVER come or find Him.
:thumbs:

 

With respect, I was not attempting to create a "straw man." This is one of the key points at which Calvinists and Arminians must disagree. To say that man MAY choose, but then to say that man is given a new nature that WILL result in an affirmative choice, is simply NOT a "choice."

Martin Luther called it "the bondage of the will." Calvin went further than that, and his disciples still further, giving us "TULIP." Arminius and those Remonstrants who followed him set out to do a corrective work within the Reformed theological structure. Naturally, some went much further -- to a Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian extreme.

God does not, from this perspective, force man to believe, nor does he put man in a position that he cannot choose otherwise. Neither does God regenerate man IN ORDER THAT he believe -- but God ENABLES man (Prevenient Grace) to believe, or face the very real consequences if he does not. In a sense, this operation of God in enabling man to believe is to say man has a "freed will," but not a "free will" in the Libertarian sense.

JDale

 

I agree...but God has never left man to himself...ever, so the "if" is kind of pointless. That's like saying "if God had made humans with wings, we could fly to Him". Well, He didn't, and He also didn't create us to fend for ourselves. That's why I don't care for the "if left to themselves...man would never seek God" phrase. No human ever created falls under this "if", so it's really pointless to say that.

I describe Total Depravity as the fact man can not save himself...period. Nothing within mankind deserves or warrants salvation. Everything from start to finish has to be done by God. Faith comes by hearing (understanding) and hearing by the Word of God. Even the faith God commands of us was inherently created within all mankind by Him. The fact that God requires something of us that He gave each and every one of us (the ability to have faith) proves God's sovereignty, mercifulness and control. If He required something of us we could not supply, salvation would never be possible, and His justice flawed.

 

By what wierd definition is an "affirmative choice" not a "choice"? I think it is.

Inability to please God, which includes faith since faith is pleasing to God.

 

Neither have I. But that's not what I said. What I said was a quotation of Romans 8:7-8

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

In Romans 8, the contrast between "in the flesh" and "in the Spirit" is a contrast between saved and unsaved. The unsaved (in the flesh) cannot please God, are unable to do so. That must, of necessity include faith since the Bible tells us that faith is pleasing to God.

I agree, I think. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. The moment of having faith is the moment that we begin pleasing God. Until then we are not pleasing to God.

I think you are confusing things here. When a Calvinist says that unregenerate man cannot hear or respond, they are referring to understanding the saving message and responding to it in faith. They are not referring to understanding the words, sentences, and propositions. Nor are they referring to understanding what may be a special revelation from God such as Pharoah received. But Pharoah did not understand the message of salvation by grace.

It is clear that unsaved man can understand the propositions, so long as they are in his language. However, to fully understand them is to accept them. I think it impossible to fully understand the message of Christ with all its implications about the glory of Christ, the horror sin, etc,and turn away from it. If one can turn away, I wonder if it is not because he does not really understand.

 

What that text does not say, though, is the one in the flesh cannot choose to be in the Spirit by setting their mind on Christ based on Truth being revealed, or who even does the "setting" for that matter. Does God set our minds on the flesh? If so, He is the author of sin. The one who sets their mind is the individual. The mind set on the flesh cannot please God, is hostile towards God, and cannot subject itself to God's law. It does not say anything about being unable to exercise faith based on the Truth we have been given.

Where does Scripture tell us that?