question on total deprravity.

[jax5434]

If my understanding of the calvinist view is correct total depravity was a result of adams fall. If this is so why isn't mentioned by God in the curses He placed upon adam and eve at the time? Especially since that would be the greatest curse of all.

Following in chap 4 of Genisis God states to Cain 'If you do right will you not be accepted?" Indicating to cain that He did have the possibilty of choosing right.

Did cain truly have a choice as God said? Or was God deliberately giving cain a false understanding?

Jax

 

[ReformedChapin]

If my understanding of the calvinist view is correct total depravity was a result of adams fall. If this is so why isn't mentioned by God in the curses He placed upon adam and eve at the time? Especially since that would be the greatest curse of all.

Following in chap 4 of Genisis God states to Cain 'If you do right will you not be accepted?" Indicating to cain that He did have the possibilty of choosing right.

Did cain truly have a choice as God said? Or was God deliberately giving cain a false understanding?

Jax

Actually that passage just indicates God's standard."Cain you should do this and you will be accepted." that doesn't imply that Cain has the ability to do right." Secondly, I dont know how much of that passage discusses Cains loss of faith, just his good works.

 

[UMP]

If my understanding of the calvinist view is correct total depravity was a result of adams fall. If this is so why isn't mentioned by God in the curses He placed upon adam and eve at the time? Especially since that would be the greatest curse of all.

Following in chap 4 of Genisis God states to Cain 'If you do right will you not be accepted?" Indicating to cain that He did have the possibilty of choosing right.

Did cain truly have a choice as God said? Or was God deliberately giving cain a false understanding?

Jax

I like the way Pink describes it. It's not as if Cain lacked the physical, mental or "natural" ability to do the right thing, but lacked the moral ability, hence the guilt.

Now let it be clearly understood that, when we speak of the sinner’s inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Abijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him", for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8.—"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here it is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse—"O generation of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ."

A.W. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_08.htm

 

[jax5434]

Actually that passage just indicates God's standard."Cain you should do this and you will be accepted." that doesn't imply that Cain has the ability to do right." Secondly, I dont know how much of that passage discusses Cains loss of faith, just his good works.

I understand that this is the conclusion you come to by applying the tulip retro-actively. however the scriptures that calvinism draws from did no exist at the moment of this conversation.

God's words here are not spoken as a statement/standard but as a question "if you do..." Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right? Or would he have understood God to be telling him that he was incapable of doing so?

Jax

 

[jax5434]

I like the way Pink describes it. It's not as if Cain lacked the physical, mental or "natural" ability to do the right thing, but lacked the moral ability, hence the guilt.

Now let it be clearly understood that, when we speak of the sinner’s inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Abijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him", for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8.—"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here it is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse—"O generation of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ."

A.W. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_08.htm

Again as i said to Newguy you are applying reteroactively scripture and commentary that cain did not have to draw upon. All he had was the words that God had spoken to him. From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?

Jax

 

[bradfordl]

To take things in context, I'd ask first why God had regard for Abel's offering and not for Cain's?

We're talking about Almighty God here, not some grandfather chatting with his grandkids. Did He not know beforehand that Cain would be angered by His preference? Did He not know that Cain would slay Abel? Of course He knew all this, in fact He ordained it to be. So when He made His sovereign choice to prefer Abel over Cain in regards to their offerings, saw Cain's anger, and made this statement to him, it could not be as one who was hoping Cain would choose the good and eschew the evil, and therefore was encouraging him to do well. He knew the outcome, He was declaring the law so that Cain would be without excuse.

By the same token, when God asks Cain "Where is your brother?", and, "What have you done?", it is obviously not because He didn't already know what Cain had done, for He indicts him of his brother's blood in the next sentence. And Cain, true to his nature, complains bitterly of the burden of his sentence, when what he justly deserved was hell.

So from God's perspective, the question could not have been one that implied multiple contingent possibilities of outcome, but what apparently concerns you is how Cain would have understood it. Let's go back to where Cain became angry. Who was he angry with? God. Is it not already sin to be angry with God? Cain's heart was already in full-fledged rebellion against God when he impudently thought that things ought to go his way rather than God's, and then got angry when it didn't. Imagine this. Cain had to have some understanding of God's omnipotence and holiness to have been so near Him apparently all his life, yet he is "willing" to exalt his own desires above God's. He was already in sin, and had to know it.

God's statement, then, was a rhetorical device, wasn't it? Cain was already deserving of hell for his anger. God preaches the Gospel in all of His creation, to save those "ordained unto eternal life", and to those not-so-ordained, that they may be "without excuse". And He doesn't have to make sure they've read and understood all of scripture before passing judgement upon them. He explains to Cain the law while Cain is standing before Him seething in sin and unrepentence.

So from Cain's perspective, isn't it sort of like a speeder being pulled over and the cop asking "Did you know the speed limit here is 45 mph?"? That implies the law... stay under, you'll be OK, go over, there's a price to pay. But he's already broken that law and, and is gonna get the ticket. To think that the cop is just sweetly giving advice makes no sense. Same with Cain, he was already doing "not well".

 

[ReformedChapin]

I understand that this is the conclusion you come to by applying the tulip retro-actively. however the scriptures that calvinism draws from did no exist at the moment of this conversation.

God's words here are not spoken as a statement/standard but as a question "if you do..." Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right? Or would he have understood God to be telling him that he was incapable of doing so?

Jax

The point all reformed people will argue is that the scripture you cited doesn't state you can or you cannot perform that action. The scripture just states YOU MUST DO THIS. We deduced inability based on a systematic view of scripture.

 

[jax5434]

[ ]

To take things in context, I'd ask first why God had regard for Abel's offering and not for Cain's?

Don't we also have to ask if cain new god's preference beforhand?

We're talking about Almighty God here, not some grandfather chatting with his grandkids. Did He not know beforehand that Cain would be angered by His preference? Did He not know that Cain would slay Abel? Of course He knew all this, in fact He ordained it to be

.

I agree that God knew all these things. That he ordained it is an assumption necessitated by presupposing Calvinism.

So when He made His sovereign choice to prefer Abel over Cain in regards to their offerings, saw Cain's anger, and made this statement to him, it could not be as one who was hoping Cain would choose the good and eschew the evil, and therefore was encouraging him to do well. He knew the outcome, He was declaring the law so that Cain would be without excuse.

To declare the law after the fact would leave cain with out recourse, not excuse.

By the same token, when God asks Cain "Where is your brother?", and, "What have you done?", it is obviously not because He didn't already know what Cain had done, for He indicts him of his brother's blood in the next sentence. And Cain, true to his nature, complains bitterly of the burden of his sentence, when what he justly deserved was hell.

All true but somewhat off point

So from God's perspective, the question could not have been one that implied multiple contingent possibilities of outcome, but what apparently concerns you is how Cain would have understood it. Let's go back to where Cain became angry. Who was he angry with? God. Is it not already sin to be angry with God? Cain's heart was already in full-fledged rebellion against God when he impudently thought that things ought to go his way rather than God's, and then got angry when it didn't. Imagine this. Cain had to have some understanding of God's omnipotence and holiness to have been so near Him apparently all his life, yet he is "willing" to exalt his own desires above God's. He was already in sin, and had to know it.

Doen't total depravity mean that cain could not have had any understanding of those things regardless of how near to God he may have been?

God's statement, then, was a rhetorical device, wasn't it? Cain was already deserving of hell for his anger. God preaches the Gospel in all of His creation, to save those "ordained unto eternal life", and to those not-so-ordained, that they may be "without excuse". And He doesn't have to make sure they've read and understood all of scripture before passing judgement upon them. He explains to Cain the law while Cain is standing before Him seething in sin and unrepentence.

Again apart from the necessity of calvinism there is no contextual reason to see this as a rhetorical question.
I agree that god does not have to do anything. There is no question that god is sovereign. The question lies in how he chooses to exercist that sovereignity.

[

]So from Cain's perspective, isn't it sort of like a speeder being pulled over and the cop asking "Did you know the speed limit here is 45 mph?"? That implies the law... stay under, you'll be OK, go over, there's a price to pay. But he's already broken that law and, and is gonna get the ticket. To think that the cop is just sweetly giving advice makes no sense. Same with Cain, he was already [/code]doing "not well".

To continue this analogy the ticket is being informed of your wrong doing ( offering an improper sacrifice) the motorist then has a choice to either do the right thing(pay the ticket/make an appropriate sacrifice) or ignore the ticket and face the consequences. Regardless of whether or not the cop asks the question rhetorically the motorist still has the ability to do ther ight thing.

Jax

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I understand that this is the conclusion you come to by applying the tulip retro-actively. however the scriptures that calvinism draws from did no exist at the moment of this conversation.

You can lift any few verses out of the text and interpret them any number of ways. That's why God gave us the entire Scripture. You can only really understand what Scripture is saying when you examine everything it has to say on a topic.

 

[UMP]

Again as i said to Newguy you are applying reteroactively scripture and commentary that cain did not have to draw upon. All he had was the words that God had spoken to him. From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?

Jax

Regardless, Cain is guilty, that we must agree on.
Furthermore, "future" scripture tells us, I believe, that Cain had the "natural" ability to choose, yet lacked the moral ability to do what was required, hence guilty, as Mr. Pink has tried to explain in my previous post. Regardless of whether Cain had as much light as our generation is really beside the point, unless you believe God is on trial here. If this is the case, I refer to Romans 9, when the Holy Spirit anticipated a similar query of God:

Romans 9:
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

[jax5434]

You can lift any few verses out of the text and interpret them any number of ways. That's why God gave us the entire Scripture. You can only really understand what Scripture is saying when you examine everything it has to say on a topic.

Percisely my point.

Jax

 

[jax5434]

Regardless, Cain is guilty, that we must agree on.

Yes

Furthermore, "future" scripture tells us, I believe, that Cain had the "natural" ability to choose, yet lacked the moral ability to do what was required, hence guilty, as Mr. Pink has tried to explain in my previous post.

as anothe poster said you need to look at all the scriptures in context to build doctrine. not just a select few.

My question is can you support the concept of total depravity from this scripture with out simply pre-supposing your arguement?

Regardless of whether Cain had as much light as our generation is really beside the point, unless you believe God is on trial here. If this is the case, I refer to Romans 9, when the Holy Spirit anticipated a similar query of God:

Please don't equate questioning calvinism with putting God on trial.

I am not questioning God or his actions. I am questioning the calvinist understanding of the same.

Romans 9:
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

And i would refer to romans chpt 9 vs 1-5 where the apostle paul clearly sets the context for what follows.
His stated context is "my people israel"

Is there a sound contextual reason to expand this teaching into Christianity in general? Again without simply assuming your arguement what; textual reasons are there for replacing Pauls stated context with the context preferred by John calvin?

Jax

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Percisely my point.

Jax

Do you realize you're doing exactly that when you ask "From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?" and "Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right?"? You're trying to isolate this verse from the rest of Scripture...but God didn't give us these verses in isolation, did he?

 

[bradfordl]

Cain stood guilty before God when he heard the referenced statement. He knew already that he had not done well. And he obviously had some idea of the difference between right and wrong, else there would have been no motivation for him to lie about his actions. The statement was a declaration of the law, not a setting before Cain of a choice that he had not already made.

 

[jax5434]

Do you realize you're doing exactly that when you ask "From those words only would cain have concluded that he had a choice, or that he did not?" and "Based solely on these spoken words of God would cain have un derstood God to mean that he could choose right?"? You're trying to isolate this verse from the rest of Scripture...but God didn't give us these verses in isolation, did he?

[QUOTE ]

There is some truth in what you say. I selected this verse because it happens relatively soon after the fallwhen the suppsoed curse of total deparavity was placed on mankind. In these verses there are only two "actors" God and cain.This provides a very simple context which is easily discerned.

In these verses neither cain nor God behaves in a way cinsistent with total depravity. Cain is seeking God al;beit incorrectly thru offering the wrong sacrifice and God talks to Cain about how he can do better andthough cain rejects God's way and goes his own contextually and linguistically the clear reading is that

1) cain ,even after the fall, had the ability to seek God.
2) God presents cain with choice of actions.

My question was, and still is, can this be reconciled with calvinist thinking with out simply assuming the argument and arguing in a circle and without redefining the character and nature of God as god himself has defined it.

If this particular passage strikes anyone as unfair we can look at other passages recording God's interaction with man thru out the OT. The problem remains the same. God simply does not act as though He is aware that his people are totally depraved. He consistently presents them with choices that he indicates they were capable of making. Either they were capable
natuarally, spiritually, and morally of making this choice or they were not.

If ,as calvinism says,they were not then God is acting contrary to His own self defined nature by deliberately leaving them with a false understanding. Simply retroactively applying Calvin,s doctrine to these scriptures does nat alter the fact that at that moment,to those people God would have been less than truthful.

If He does this(deliberately mislead people) then there is no such thing as scriptual truth since He could be misleading us at any point ( including John calvin).

So again my question. Can the doctrine of total depravity be supported scripturaly in a way that does not assume the argument and does not impugne God's self defined nature

Jax

 

[heymikey80]

If my understanding of the calvinist view is correct total depravity was a result of adams fall. If this is so why isn't mentioned by God in the curses He placed upon adam and eve at the time? Especially since that would be the greatest curse of all.

I'm unsure why you'd think it must be mentioned by God in the curses He immediately imposed.

Do you think God delights in pronouncing curses?

And do you think God imposed the worst of the curses immediately?

God had admittedly already stated, "In the day you eat of it you shall die." Spiritual death deduces in what Total Inability states.

And so does Scripture: Rom 3:9-19.

Following in chap 4 of Genisis God states to Cain 'If you do right will you not be accepted?" Indicating to cain that He did have the possibilty of choosing right.

The indication to Cain was that by doing completely right he would be accepted.

God delivered the Mosaic Law at the same time He asserted we couldn't keep it. Any comment on why God would do such an odd thing? How is that different from what the Calvinist asserts for these verses?

Did cain truly have a choice as God said? Or was God deliberately giving cain a false understanding?

Cain truly had a choice -- just as much choice as Satan has to do good. The will chooses. A total inability of will is an unwillingness to choose differently. Cain wasn't incapable, physically. He was simply unwilling.

 

[jax5434]

I'm unsure why you'd think it must be mentioned by God in the curses He immediately imposed.

Because not doing so would mean he was being less than truthful with them

Do you think God delights in pronouncing curses

?
I don't know for sure but i doubt that he does. However when he does choose to he always clear and forthright about it.

And do you think God imposed the worst of the curses immediately?

I believe he imposed the entirety of the curses immediately. Do you think he needed time to mull things over?

God had admittedly already stated, "In the day you eat of it you shall die." Spiritual death deduces in what Total Inability states.

I will have to hold this point in abeyance as Ineed to do a little research here. However i must say that this is the best argument I've seen put forth here thus far

And so does Scripture: Rom 3:9-19

.

The verses you sight are the beginning of Pauls summation of an arguement he bigins in Chp1 vs18. His arguement beiing that evreyone both jew and gentile can not earn rightousness with God on their own merits. This much I know we agree on.

His ultimate conclusion can be found in vs 20. No one will be declared rightous in his sight by observing the law. Bur rather through the law we become conscience of sin ( the purpose of the law). 21 he begins speaking of the new rightousness thru faith in vs21 and in vs 22 he states that this rightousness comes thru faith to all who believe. If the all who stand condemned mean all and not just some, then the all that are feely justified by his grace must also mean all and not just some. you must aleays keep in mind the 1st three rules of hermauneutics. context context context.

The indication to Cain was that by doing completely right he would be accepted.

And the implication to cain was that he was fully capable of doing so.

God delivered the Mosaic Law at the same time He asserted we couldn't keep it. Any comment on why God would do such an odd thing?

I agree with Pauls conclusion. The purpose of the law was to make us aware of our sins. It pointed out our need for the sacrifices of the OT and the sacrifice of Jesus in the new. It was to point us to salvation not substitute for it.

How is that different from what the Calvinist asserts for these verses?
[/QUOTE

I cant speak for calvinists. My perception is that calvanism believes its about obedience not grace.



Cain truly had a choice -- just as much choice as Satan has to do good.

The will chooses. A total inability of will is an unwillingness to choose differently. Cain wasn't incapable, physically. He was simply unwilling.[/quote

I read this several times to make sure i understood you completely. If your saying that total depravity means only that some are unwilling to choose God then I agree.
But that means that this whole calvinism thing is much ado about nothing since all christians would agree with that assessment.

as a side note I am going to be very busy for the next few days. It may be weds/thurs befor i can get back here.

God bless

Jax

 

[GrinningDwarf]

My perception is that calvanism believes its about obedience not grace.

Then your perception is diametrically opposed to what Calvinists teach. In other words...you're not understanding it yet...but keep trying!!

I read this several times to make sure i understood you completely. If your saying that total depravity means only that some are unwilling to choose God then I agree.

No...he means that all are unwilling to choose before God regenerates a heart. Let’s take a look at what scripture has to say about man in an unregenerate state...

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. Romans 3:10-11

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. Psalm 58:3

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. Gen 8:21


(Note...this is not a hypothetical evil that may be in some men’s hearts. God says here that every inclination of all men’s hearts are evil from childhood.)

This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. Ecclesiastes 9:3

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:19

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

(Notice, the man without the Spirit...or an unregenerate man...does not accept the things of God.)

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. Ephesians 4:17-19

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15


...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:7-8

(The King James and New King James versions phrase this “the carnal mind is enmity towards God.” Think about that the next time you hear the phrase ‘carnal Christian.’)

Let’s think about this for a minute. The unregenerate person is sinful, wayward, lying, having every inclination towards evil, mad, loving of darkness, rejecting of the things of God, considering the things of God as foolishness, hardened, insensitive, corrupt, and hostile towards God. Why would such a person even want anything to do with God? Only when God regenerates a persons heart will anybody ever even want anything to do with God.

 

[heymikey80]

Because not doing so would mean he was being less than truthful with them

Well first, that's not true. God is under no compunction to tell us everything all at once. He may choose the time to let us in on the facts.

Second, God stated, "In the day you eat you shall die." That happened in some way. That's the basis for total inability. Death is a pretty total inability.

Btw, that's not stated as a curse. That's stated as a consequence that ensued directly from the sin.

I don't know for sure but i doubt that he does. However when he does choose to he always clear and forthright about it.

I think you'll find that clarity is often obscure when it comes to blessings and curses. When we're punished the cause is not always clearly delineated by God.

I believe he imposed the entirety of the curses immediately. Do you think he needed time to mull things over?

Then that day they died.

The verses you sight are the beginning of Pauls summation of an arguement he bigins in Chp1 vs18. His arguement beiing that evreyone both jew and gentile can not earn rightousness with God on their own merits. This much I know we agree on.

Um, actually, no, I don't think this way. I think Paul's point spreads far beyond. Merit-righteousness was an issue four centuries after Paul. Paul isn't ignoring merit-righteousness. He just goes far beyond it.

The statement of Paul's begins with his first main point in 1:18. The argument is that God is against the unrighteous who act in their unrighteousness (ch. 1); that thinking you're righteous or reading the Law ("bein' spiritual") or following its ceremonies ("bein' religious") doesn't make your righteous (ch. 2); that all are unrighteous (ch 3:1-19), even in desire for God (see 3:9-10), and unrighteousness even to show God's righteousness is not going to vindicate us in the end (cf 3:1-8).

I've marveled a little that it's always put in terms of merit-justification. Yes, the Pelagian argument is skewered to death because of these chapters. But Paul is much more expansive. His indictment is more extreme than that. We're unrighteous by every measure: works, religion, desire, pursuit.

His ultimate conclusion can be found in vs 20. No one will be declared rightous in his sight by observing the law. Bur rather through the law we become conscience of sin ( the purpose of the law).

Not really. If it were, then everything from 1:18 to 3:20 could be pressed toward that argument.

Yet "No one seeks after God" isn't some legal observance of the Law. It's a will-based statement, and nothing else. There are myriad other statements about "our unrighteousness" and our rejection of God, our desires, and our hearts, and our Spirit.

you must aleays keep in mind the 1st three rules of hermauneutics. context context context.

I agree. That's why, when the context hammers away at heart issues, I point out: "the heart is the thing."

And at that point, Total Inability is dead on. It says with the heart being corrupted, whatever you desire is from a corrupt desire, wherever you turn, it's from a corrupt motive. You're sunk. Your desires will kill you. Your spirit -- well, as I said, it's already dead in God's sight.

I read this several times to make sure i understood you completely. If your saying that total depravity means only that some are unwilling to choose God then I agree.
But that means that this whole calvinism thing is much ado about nothing since all christians would agree with that assessment.

Um, I would have to say that this argument against calvinism really is much ado about nothing. It's based on a massively mistaken assumption. Feel free to read Calvin's "Eternal Predestination" for confirmation -- or even the Institutes. At that point Calvin says, if all "free will" were about was the power given man to do as he pleased, we have no objection. We just think such a definition is too shallow to expose anything about how God sees and deals with the human heart.

But there's still a serious difference. Many Christians disagree with Calvinists over where that unwillingness originates. Calvinists insist it originates by God's intent in creating. That's where the argument truly appears. It's always shoved away, and toward this direction we're arguing right now. To me that's a sad commentary on the opposition's unwillingness to confront the fractures in their own theology. But =shrug=, I agree. The argument implied onto Calvinism is much ado about nothing.

The point of Calvin's is that God made that will which so willingly opposes Him. That will wasn't set on a sea of chance or independence to choose or not choose. God made wills that way; He planned each the way they result; He places them in history at their appointed times; and He does what He intends to do with them.

That's what normally twists people around the axle.

I hope this helps recognize the scene as we come upon it.

 

[jax5434]

Then your perception is diametrically opposed to what Calvinists teach. In other words...you're not understanding it yet...but keep trying!!

I will

No...he means that all are unwilling to choose before God regenerates a heart. Let’s take a look at what scripture has to say about man in an unregenerate state...

I can only respsond to what he said. That's why read it carefully because it did not sound like a typical calvinist position. He said it meant an unwillingness to choose right. which is what i agreed with


As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. Romans 3:10-11

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. Psalm 58:3

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. Gen 8:21


(Note...this is not a hypothetical evil that may be in some men’s hearts. God says here that every inclination of all men’s hearts are evil from childhood.)

This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. Ecclesiastes 9:3

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. John 3:19

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

(

Notice, the man without the Spirit...or an unregenerate man...does not accept the things of God.)

There is no disagreement on that. The question is how god chooses to accomplish that regeneration

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. Ephesians 4:17-19

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15


...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:7-8

(

The King James and New King James versions phrase this “the carnal mind is enmity towards God.” Think about that the next time you hear the phrase ‘carnal Christian.’)

Once again, here at least ,we are in complete agreement. there is no such thing as a carnal christian. or at least i do not understand how there could be.

Let’s think about this for a minute. The unregenerate person is sinful, wayward, lying, having every inclination towards evil, mad, loving of darkness, rejecting of the things of God, considering the things of God as foolishness, hardened, insensitive, corrupt, and hostile towards God. Why would such a person even want anything to do with God? Only when God regenerates a persons heart will anybody ever even want anything to do with God.

I agree with all that you say here. It is only how this regeneration occurs that we differ.


Jax









Your statement and conlcusion is absolutely correct imo ( whatever that's worth). It is how this regeneration occurs where we differ.