Calvinism's Total Depravity

TheSeabass · Jun 3, 2019

fhansen said:
There must be a reason why humans sin-and it cannot be because God directly made them that way.

Free will.

Man has the free will and ability to choose to do well and to choose to not do well Genesis 4:7.

Adam and Eve were not made with a sinful nature/totally depraved, they were innocent. Yet all they needed to sin was a law and free will. When they used their free will to transgress God's law THEN and only THEN they became sinners. The same is true for us today...we are born into this world innocent and upon intellectually maturing learning right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16) then sin springs up in man (Romans 7:7-9)

fhansen said:
And so the idea that man is fallen in some way has much merit. The idea of his becoming totally corrupted, losing all desire for God, or inheriting a "sin nature", as if his basic human nature were changed, however, is wrong. The chief aspect of the state man now finds himself in, the state known as "Original Sin", is spiritual separation from God. This constitutes death for man as man was made for communion with God, 'apart from Who we can do nothing'.

If man were born with a sinful nature/totally depraved, then man would have an excuse for his sins when man will be 'without excuse" for his sins.

How can men, (if all men were born with a sinful nature/totally depraved), be judged justly and rightly and be condemned for how he was passively born against his will? How can one born without legs be justly rightly condemned for not walking? There could be no just judgment, condemnation of men.

How can a man (if all men are born with a sinful nature/totally depraved) ever come to have faith? It would be impossible that any man could ever have faith. God would then have to choose among men as to which ones He will "regenerate" so only those chosen can come to have faith. This puts God in the position of being a respecter of persons, when He is not, Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35.

fhansen said:
With the Old Covenant reconciliation between man and God wasn't the primary focus. Rather the primary focus was for man to see if he could be righteous on his own, which should then mean reconciliation by proving our justice, sort of self-justification. But man could never pull that off because, again, "Apart from Me you can do nothing". That statement from John 15:5 is the New Covenant mantra. Man doesn't need to obey first of all, since he can't really do that anyway as the Law ends up teaching us, but rather he needs to turn to God first of all, as man comes to know Him, and so enter a direct relationship with Him whereupon He can do the justifying as was always meant to be the case. This is the "righteousness of God" rather than the self-righteousness of man which is operative even when man is "under the Law", a "righteousness" that leads to all kinds of problems in the world and personal failure in the end.

Jesus came to accomplish this union by revealing the "face" of the true God as he'd never been known before, when the time was ripe, was we're ready to receive it. This knowledge is the object of faith, and faith, from our perspective, then establishes this relationship:
"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD." Jer 31:34

And this relationship, itself, is the essence of man's justice or righteousness, and from that point God makes man righteous, or justifies him, to the extent that He continues to abide in us and we in Him.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that sin exists outside of law and that law being transgressed. Sin is not a substance that is passed from one to another nor is sin just an abstract idea passed from one to another.
There is not a single example anywhere in the Bible of one being called a 'sinner' who had not transgressed God's law. Just as there is no example of anyone in the Bible being called 'righteous' yet had never done any righteousness. What a person does determines what a person is....just as the Bible shows one's deeds determined one's eternal fate, Romans 2:6-11.

Man does have the ability to obey God. Those Peer spoke to in Acts 2 were lost, spiritually dead, separated from God. Yet they had the ability (and accountability) to obey Peter's command to repent and be baptized.

John 15:5 ".....: for without me ye can do nothing." The idea here is that apart from Christ, no one can stand before God and be seen by God as perfectly righteous. No one can do anything for himself, by himself as to where he can stand before God perfectly righteous.
Yet in Galatians 3:27 when one is baptized into Christ, one puts on Christ. The Greek word for "put on" endyo means to sink into clothing - Strong's. When I put on a coat then I am in the coat. When one puts on Christ in baptism, then one is in Christ, in Christ's perfect righteous. Once in Christ, then God sees me as perfectly righteous being clothed in Christ's perfect righteousness....."....that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:" Colossians 1:28.
The idea in John 15:5 is NOT that man is incapable of obeying, incapable of having faith unless God first acts upon man in some miraculous, mysterious way.

TheSeabass · Jun 3, 2019

Albion said:
Yes, I will give you that. The first Christians were not thinking of many aspects of the faith that later were determined by the church or by popular opinion.

That's not correct, however.

" Augustine's formulation of original sin after 412 CE was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good."

Original sin - Wikipedia

TheSeabass · Jun 3, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Before engaging too far into this thread, I would like to see your answers to a few questions ... (once I see your direct focus more directly, I can approach this in a more specific manner).

What was Adam's nature (concerning his desire [not ability] to choose between that which was good, vs that which was evil?

Do you believe Adam's nature (that in question above) changed after he willingly chose to transgress the law of God.

Do we, (Adam's progeny) have the same nature (that in question above) as Adam was created with, or does our nature differ?

Please, at least briefly explain your answers ... Thank you.

Adam was created innocent not having any sinful nature/total depravity yet he was still able to sin. One today does not have to be born with a sinful nature to sin. All that is needed to sin is a law and free will to choose to transgress that law.

In Genesis 4:7 Cain had the same ability to do well as he had the ability to not do well.

We today are as Adam:
1) we are born innocent (Adam was made innocent)
2) we are all given free will (as Adam)
3) we are all under a law of GOd (as Adam)

Those who intellectually mature and learn right from wrong, then choose to transgress God's law are sinners. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17.

Albion · Jun 3, 2019

TheSeabass said:
" Augustine's formulation of original sin after 412 CE was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin

Sure, but so were a lot of other doctrines that in similar fashion had been standards with the Roman Church for centuries.

And by the way, your Wikipedia link points out that Augustine was far from having originated the idea of Original Sin, but that such early figures as Irenaeus and Tertullian had taught it.

TheSeabass · Jun 3, 2019

Albion said:
Sure, but so were a lot of other doctrines that in similar fashion had been standards with the Roman Church for centuries.

Original sin cannot be traced to the teachings of Christ, His Apostle nor the OT law or the first century church. It is purely a man made idea.

Albion · Jun 3, 2019

TheSeabass said:
Original sin cannot be traced to the teachings of Christ, His Apostle nor the OT law or the first century church. It is purely a man made idea.

Either way, it is incorrect to talk as though the Reformers of the 16th century introduced the belief. It dates from at least the Second Century. And yes, it does have Old Testament support.

fhansen · Jun 3, 2019

TheSeabass said:
Free will.

Man has the free will and ability to choose to do well and to choose to not do well Genesis 4:7.

Adam and Eve were not made with a sinful nature/totally depraved, they were innocent. Yet all they needed to sin was a law and free will. When they used their free will to transgress God's law THEN and only THEN they became sinners. The same is true for us today...we are born into this world innocent and upon intellectually maturing learning right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16) then sin springs up in man (Romans 7:7-9)

I was speaking of fallen man. But either way free will cannot guarantee, by itself, that we'll sin or else God would be totally and directly blameworthy for each and every sin no matter how atrocious. Free will gives the option for sin-and therefore doesn't by itself provide the answer for why Adam sinned.

TheSeabass said:
If man were born with a sinful nature/totally depraved, then man would have an excuse for his sins when man will be 'without excuse" for his sins.

I didn't say that man was totally depraved-just the opposite, in fact. Man's will wasn't completely compromised by the fall. Rather the will was weakened and his conscience dimmed due to no longer being subjugated to God, no longer knowing Him let alone being in union with Him. By reaching for autonomy from God's authority, for complete self-control, man ironically lost the ability to consistently control himself in the moral sphere.

TheSeabass said:
How can men, (if all men were born with a sinful nature/totally depraved), be judged justly and rightly and be condemned for how he was passively born against his will? How can one born without legs be justly rightly condemned for not walking? There could be no just judgment, condemnation of men.

I agree. And it certainly wouldn't be right in any way to predestine such a person to hell. God would be worse than satan in that case.

TheSeabass said:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that sin exists outside of law and that law being transgressed. Sin is not a substance that is passed from one to another nor is sin just an abstract idea passed from one to another.
No, sin is the breaking of God's law, which was already written in the human heart. Augustine said, "God wrote on tablets of stone which man failed to read in his heart." We already know but our consciences are hardened, and we suffer from the same pride that opposed God in Adam, and the selfishness and even shame and fear of other's opinions that comes along with it. Man was made for communion with God and we're here to learn that lesson-how much we need Him and how deserving He is of our faith and love and worship and obedience. We're here to come to make Him our God again, with His help as He draws us-and the will is undeniably involved in that process.

TheSeabass said:

John 15:5 ".....: for without me ye can do nothing." The idea here is that apart from Christ, no one can stand before God and be seen by God as perfectly righteous.

Click to expand...

No, the idea here is that man cannot be righteous apart from God, the way He always intended us to be. Man was not created to be a sinner after all. No one can do anything for himself, by himself as to where he can stand before God perfectly righteous.
Yet in Galatians 3:27 when one is baptized into Christ, one puts on Christ. The Greek word for "put on" endyo means to sink into clothing - Strong's. When I put on a coat then I am in the coat. When one puts on Christ in baptism, then one is in Christ, in Christ's perfect righteous. Once in Christ, then God sees me as perfectly righteous being clothed in Christ's perfect righteousness....."....that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:" Colossians 1:28.
The idea in John 15:5 is NOT that man is incapable of obeying, incapable of having faith unless God first acts upon man in some miraculous, mysterious way.

The difference between the Old & New Covenants is not about man no longer being obligated to being righteous, rather it's the difference between man being righteous on his own vs man being made righteous by God. God didn't suddenly decide to ignore justice with the NC, but to restore it, the right way finally as the time became ripe in human history after patiently preparing humankind over centuries. As God justifies man we begin to love as we should, and the law becomes fulfilled in us as obedience then flows of it's own accord. God wants way more for us than we give Him credit for. A third century bishop, Basil of Cesarea put it this way:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

TheSeabass · Jun 3, 2019

Albion said:
Either way, it is incorrect to talk as though the Reformers of the 16th century introduced the belief. It dates from at least the Second Century. And yes, it does have Old Testament support.

I believe the idea of original sin started with someone (Augustine, Irenaeus) in the 2nd or 3rd century. The Reformers of the 16th century just promoted the idea further.

TheSeabass · Jun 3, 2019

fhansen said:
I was speaking of fallen man. But either way free will cannot guarantee, by itself, that we'll sin or else God would be totally and directly blameworthy for each and every sin no matter how atrocious. Free will gives the option for sin-and therefore doesn't by itself provide the answer for why Adam sinned.

From all the Bible teaches about sin, for sin to exist there must be (1) a law and (2) that law must be transgressed. This is what happen in Eden with Adam. God gave them a law, and Adam and Eve chose to disobey it having been deceived by Satan.

Nowhere in the Bible is one referred to as a sinner but who has not transgressed God's law.

In Romans chapters 1-4 Paul spends the first 2 chapters proving that all (Jew and Gentile) are sinners. In chapter 1 Paul shows sins the Gentiles committed/transgressed and chapter 2 sins the Jews committed/transgressed. Not one time does Paul even remotely suggest that all are born sinners, the idea is not even in his mind. Paul never concluded all are under sin for all are born sinners. If original sin were biblical then there would be no better opportune place than Romans chapters 1 and 2 for it to be taught, even mentioned...but it is not there at all.

fhansen said:
I didn't say that man was totally depraved-just the opposite, in fact. Man's will wasn't completely compromised by the fall. Rather the will was weakened and his conscience dimmed due to no longer being subjugated to God, no longer knowing Him let alone being in union with Him. By reaching for autonomy from God's authority, for complete self-control, man ironically lost the ability to consistently control himself in the moral sphere.

There is no TOTAL depravity as Calvin claimed. Nor has man "lost the ability to consistently control himself in the moral sphere". Genesis 4:7 Cain maintain the ability to choose between doing well or not doing well, God told him to do well but Cain chose to do wrong. Abel on the other hand chose to do what was well, Hebrews 11:12.

Let me add, the fact that man is not perfectly sinless does not mean man has lost all ability to control himself in the moral sphere. David committed grievous sins, yet still called a man after God's own heart. How can this be? For David repented of his sins and God forgave. Although David was not perfectly sinless, he did consistently maintain the ability to repent of his sins (as God would have man to to) and received forgiveness.

fhansen said:
I agree. And it certainly wouldn't be right in any way to predestine such a person to hell.

The difference between the Old & New Covenants is not about man no longer being obligated to being righteous, rather it's the difference between man being righteous on his own vs man being made righteous by God. God didn't suddenly decide to ignore justice with the NC, but to restore it, the right way. As God justifies man we begin to love as we should, and the law becomes fulfilled in us as obedience then flows of it's own accord. God wants way more for us than we give Him credit for. A thrid century bishop, Basil of Cesarea put it this way:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

The same is true in both the OT and NT as to WHOM God makes righteous. It has been and always be those that have an obedient faith in doing the will of God are the ones that are righteous before God.

Dr. Jack · Jun 3, 2019

TheSeabass said:
Adam was created innocent not having any sinful nature/total depravity yet he was still able to sin. One today does not have to be born with a sinful nature to sin. All that is needed to sin is a law and free will to choose to transgress that law.

In Genesis 4:7 Cain had the same ability to do well as he had the ability to not do well.

We today are as Adam:
1) we are born innocent (Adam was made innocent)
2) we are all given free will (as Adam)
3) we are all under a law of GOd (as Adam)

Those who intellectually mature and learn right from wrong, then choose to transgress God's law are sinners. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17.

Is there a particular reason you are equating "original sin" (which has various definitions) with "Total Depravity"?

fhansen · Jun 3, 2019

TheSeabass said:
Original sin cannot be traced to the teachings of Christ, His Apostle nor the OT law or the first century church. It is purely a man made idea.

Perhaps it'd be helpful to first of all get an understanding of the concept the term is meant to convey-not all beliefs are the same on this. I'd look for a difference between Adam in Eden and the rest of us now, considering that Scripture tells us in Rom 5 that sin and death entered the world through one man-and that all sinned in him.

fhansen · Jun 3, 2019

TheSeabass said:
From all the Bible teaches about sin, for sin to exist there must be (1) a law and (2) that law must be transgressed. This is what happen in Eden with Adam. God gave them a law, and Adam and Eve chose to disobey it having been deceived by Satan.

Yes, they broke God's one command to them-and they already knew it intuitively which is why they hid. This means that the law was also written in their hearts.

TheSeabass said:
Nowhere in the Bible is one referred to as a sinner but who has not transgressed God's law.

In Romans chapters 1-4 Paul spends the first 2 chapters proving that all (Jew and Gentile) are sinners. In chapter 1 Paul shows sins the Gentiles committed/transgressed and chapter 2 sins the Jews committed/transgressed. Not one time does Paul even remotely suggest that all are born sinners, the idea is not even in his mind. Paul never concluded all are under sin for all are born sinners. If original sin were biblical then there would be no better opportune place than Romans chapters 1 and 2 for it to be taught, even mentioned...but it is not there at all.

Then God is the author of evil, having created people who can't help but sin. As it is, however, Adam could've refrained if he so chose but by choosing to disobey he basically catapulted humanity into a very different world, one where innocence was already lost because man had lost intimate knowledge of God. And this is why, BTW, we don't even know where we came from, if anywhere, what we're here for, if for anything, and where we're going, if anywhere. Man is lost, and his integrity compromised. But man is here now to benefit from this lost condition only in the sense that by experiencing the evil of the absence of the Master in his life and in his world he may come to develop a hunger and thirst for righteousness, forsaking that evil and responding to and embracing the good when he sees it, the Ultimate Good being God as revealed by Christ. Adam's bid for autonomy was wrong-we're here to learn the foolishness of his act. We're here to be found again.

TheSeabass said:
There is no TOTAL depravity as Calvin claimed. Nor has man "lost the ability to consistently control himself in the moral sphere". Genesis 4:7 Cain maintain the ability to choose between doing well or not doing well, God told him to do well but Cain chose to do wrong. Abel on the other hand chose to do what was well, Hebrews 11:12.

Do you think that Abel never sinned, in even the smallest way? The whitest lie is out of accord with true innocence.

TheSeabass said:
Let me add, the fact that man is not perfectly sinless does not mean man has lost all ability to control himself in the moral sphere. David committed grievous sins, yet still called a man after God's own heart. How can this be? For David repented of his sins and God forgave. Although David was not perfectly sinless, he did consistently maintain the ability to repent of his sins (as God would have man to to) and received forgiveness.

Did that make David right in his sin??? Methinks Uriah might take issue with the idea that David retained consistent control, as I stated it, in the moral sphere. Man needs God-and continued abiding in Him-that's the bottom-line message. Otherwise he'll eventually mess things up by "doing what is right in his own eyes", playing his own "god", so to speak.

TheSeabass said:
The same is true in both the OT and NT as to WHOM God makes righteous. It has been and always be those that have an obedient faith in doing the will of God are the ones that are righteous before God.

No, faith is meant to produce something more, but isn't bound to, which is why Paul could say in 1 Cor 13, "...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."
And Augustine could rightly say, "Without love faith may indeed exist but avails nothing."

And love acts, by it's nature, for the good of others. And so the Church can rightfully teach, quoting John of the Cross, a 16th century believer, "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love." Faith is not a get-out-of-obligation-to-obedience-free-card. Rather it's the pathway to authentic obedience because it's the pathway to God who is the pathway to love because He is love. And that's why love most fully defines justice/righteousness for man and why the Greatest Commandments are what they are BTW.

StillGods · Jun 13, 2019

subscribing so I can find this thread again

Calvinism's Total Depravity

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads