Calvinism - Total Depravity Question

[Silverback]

This is why there is a controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism, and the different positions in between. One can produce an equal number of Scriptures as the other to prove their respective positions.


At one extreme one believes that once they are genuinely converted he can never be lost no matter how he lives afterward. At the other extreme, one believes that he can be saved today and lost tomorrow, depending on whether he sins or not in any day. Then there is the person who believes that after being converted, he cannot fall back into sin because he would never want to because of the Holy Spirit within him. And then there is the other one who believes, after a decision for Christ, he is saved only if he continues with Christ but has the choice to walk away if he wants to.

We see all these views on a thread like this, and they are all correct in some way. The problem is when one person pops up and says, "My view is absolutely right, like the church I attend, and all the rest of you and your churches are in error!" (We hear that regularly from Mormons and JWs!)

Sin is sin, if sin keeps a person out of the presence of God (Heaven) then every person ever born will go to hell, and Christ would have died for nothing. People backslide, it could be in there thoughts, words, desires, or deeds. We are no longer imprisoned by the law, we are set free for Christ sake by grace through faith. If faith justifies you (a gift from God) then it's lack of faith that condemns us (which is our human condition) I would look at David, morally, he was as bad as it gets, murder, adultry, deceit, sexual imorality, greed and the list goes on, and on. Infact, David had so much blood on his hands God forbid him to build the 1st Jerusalem Temple. But David loved God, and God said David was a man after his own heart, David repented after his sins, and always committed more sins, but God always forgave David, over, and over. We are no different than David. I think that's why his story is in the bible (among other reasons) All this being said, we do not have a license to sin, but when we do, we always have Christ.

 

[1stcenturylady]

When I was in a Reformed seminary, that same question was asked of our two theology professors. One said that we were still totally depraved, but the other one said that we weren't. Total depravity is really pervasive depravity, but that messes up the TULIP! Anyway, my sense is that pervasive depravity has to do with the presence of sin in our lives after God gives us the new birth. Paul in Romans 6 says that sin no longer enslaves us. In that way, we are no longer pervasively sinful. However, we still have sin within us that we need to fight along with Satan and the tempting world.

Your question assumes that sin is only actions, but it involves our thinking, feeling, and acting. We are still sinners in that sense, while we are saints hating and fighting sins that still remain in us.

The two trains of thought is why I was still feeling like no one has answered this when I've asked before. Thank you for the update.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If we do fail in the flesh (and that is where our sinfulness is), we can use 1 John 1:9 to receive immediate forgiveness and cleansing.

What if you have sinned unknowingly and fail to repent?

 

[1stcenturylady]

If you read the political threads you would be led to believe “Total Depravity” is synonymous with “Trump.”

Whom God chooses, I choose.

 

[1stcenturylady]

When I turned on my computer I had many alerts to my questions. I want to thank everyone who cleared up this question for me.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The two trains of thought is why I was still feeling like no one has answered this when I've asked before. Thank you for the update.

I am reading a good book that explains a lot: "Practical Religion" by J C Ryle.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What if you have sinned unknowingly and fail to repent?

The Holy Spirit within you will keep on your case until you do. If you ignore or rebel against His convicting prompts, then it is not the sin that will get you in trouble, it will be resisting the Holy Spirit and rebelling against God. But, really, can you see any genuinely converted believer with a new heart doing that? I can't.

 

[Oldmantook]

This is why there is a controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism, and the different positions in between. One can produce an equal number of Scriptures as the other to prove their respective positions.

At one extreme one believes that once they are genuinely converted he can never be lost no matter how he lives afterward. At the other extreme, one believes that he can be saved today and lost tomorrow, depending on whether he sins or not in any day. Then there is the person who believes that after being converted, he cannot fall back into sin because he would never want to because of the Holy Spirit within him. And then there is the other one who believes, after a decision for Christ, he is saved only if he continues with Christ but has the choice to walk away if he wants to.

We see all these views on a thread like this, and they are all correct in some way. The problem is when one person pops up and says, "My view is absolutely right, like the church I attend, and all the rest of you and your churches are in error!" (We hear that regularly from Mormons and JWs!)

Proof texting is what you are referring to which both sides use. It is a relatively simple matter to cite those scriptures which appear to buttress our belief but it is somewhat more difficult to explain away those scriptures which appear to directly contradict our belief. What makes matters worse is that most are intractable in their beliefs as we tend to believe what we were first taught which I suppose is human nature. However since Scripture cannot contradict itself, both sides cannot be right. One side has to be "wrong" but which side? Rather than continue the merry-go-round of arguing over the meaning of scripture passages, I prefer to get to the bottom line and propose a rubber hits the road scenario which I think illustrates the folly of the Calvinist position in terms of eternal security. Every person I've asked this question to has not directly answered it. Instead they answer in terms of what someone else would do to avoid addressing the consequences of their action. You may answer if you choose but not necessary. The scenario:

If Jesus does not return before the great tribulation and you find yourself in the position of having to decide whether or not to take the mark of the beast, would YOU take the mark?
As far as I know, they have 3 possible options:
1. Yes, take the mark because I’m eternally secure. This response indicates that the person is at least consistent in their belief. However I’ve found no one responding in this manner because they know that this affirmative response directly contradicts the plain warning given in Rev 14:9-11.
2. No, don’t take the mark because if I do it would demonstrate that I was never a believer to begin with. This option puts to rest the notion that those who continue to sin or no longer believe were never believers in the first place. The person knows that he/she is a genuine believer yet at the same time has to acknowledge the consequences of his/her losing salvation upon taking the mark. It puts them in a quandary because they would never consider themselves to be unbelievers who fall away from the faith. It demonstrates in a practical manner that they as regenerate believers can indeed lose their secure position if they take the mark. They can no longer use the excuse that persons who fall away from the faith, never really believed.
3. No, don’t take the mark because if I do I’m condemned to the lake of fire. If this option is taken, a person who adheres to eternal security acknowledges that the warning of taking the mark applies to him/her personally and the doctrine of eternal security is no longer a valid belief.

A person who believes in the pre-trib rapture might protest and claim that this is not valid and is only a hypothetical example since the church is raptured before the great tribulation. However Rev 14:12 notes that the saints are still present at the time when the mark is presented. Whether this is the entire church or only tribulation saints is another matter for discussion. The main point is that v.12 commands the saints to persevere and be patient by keeping God’s commandments and their faith. Taking the mark would demonstrate that the saint has not kept the commandments and his/her faith in Jesus. Others have stated that they are 100% certain that they would never take the mark and thus deny Jesus. Peter once confidently boasted that he would never deny Jesus either and we both know what happened to him. Peter who walked and talked with Jesus face-to-face on a daily basis denied Jesus not once but thrice. So Peter who saw Jesus and his miracles in person denied Jesus, yet we who are not witnesses to such things think that we cannot, under any circumstances, deny the Lord. If we are honest, the best we can say is that we HOPE we will never deny the Lord relying on the grace that God provides. This scenario I think demonstrates in a practical manner the false teaching regarding eternal security.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

If you read the political threads you would be led to believe “Total Depravity” is synonymous with “Trump.”

He is not there yet...
If you want to see "total depravity" in action, observe what is going on..
in politics/politicians.
- I am saying this..with a sense of humor!
---
Good thread/topic..
Recently, I went back to that subject.
- Reading the book again.
"Total Depravity"
by A.W. Pink
( Did someone mention the book already? )

 

[Pioneer3mm]

Correction
----
Title of the book
"The Total Depravity of Man"
by A.W. Pink

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Every person I've asked this question to has not directly answered it.

After reading it, I'm convinced that the reason the answers are indirect is because the premise of the question assumes something about Eternal Security that isn't true.

If Jesus does not return before the great tribulation and you find yourself in the position of having to decide whether or not to take the mark of the beast, would YOU take the mark?

I hope not.

As far as I know, they have 3 possible options:
1. Yes, take the mark because I’m eternally secure.

False.

Anyone who says this confuses predestination with fate. If we were fatalists, then we would say that the outcome will be the same no matter what we do or try to do. We are not fatalists. Anyone who takes the mark is damned.

2. No, don’t take the mark because if I do it would demonstrate that I was never a believer to begin with.

False.

The parable of the sower shows two different ways a person can have faith and then fall away. The one thing that does not change is the soil. Only the seed in the good soil was destined to succeed. Many people who are believers are not destined to remain believers. Many who are unbelievers are not destined to remain so, either. Nothing changes the destiny, itself.

3. No, don’t take the mark because if I do I’m condemned to the lake of fire. If this option is taken, a person who adheres to eternal security acknowledges that the warning of taking the mark applies to him/her personally and the doctrine of eternal security is no longer a valid belief.

Not true. This is the robotic straw man argument against Calvinism. I really don't think you understand the concept of Eternal Security. The reality of human decisions and human responsibility is in no way diminished by something that goes on behind the scenes. Eternal security is not a modification of the reality that we see. It's a deeper understanding of the reality that we don't see.

A man who is predestined to salvation will not take the mark. We don't know who has Eternal Security, apart from seeing the result of its effect. Taking the Mark of the Beast is formidable evidence against it.

 

[Oldmantook]

I hope not.

At least you are honest as that is the most anyone can say. And why do you say I hope not?
If you do, will you still have eternal life? Yes or No?

False.

Anyone who says this confuses predestination with fate. If we were fatalists, then we would say that the outcome will be the same no matter what we do or try to do. We are not fatalists. Anyone who takes the mark is damned.

Since God predestined you, you don't really know if you are saved or not do you? After all, only those who persevere demonstrate they are saved. Since you can only hope you don't take the mark, you cannot be absolutely sure you are saved since you don't know whether or not you will ultimately persevere.

False.

The parable of the sower shows two different ways a person can have faith and then fall away. The one thing that does not change is the soil. Only the seed in the good soil was destined to succeed. Many people who are believers are not destined to remain believers. Many who are unbelievers are not destined to remain so, either. Nothing changes the destiny, itself.

The passage says nothing whatsoever about "destined." You are wearing your Reformed glasses as you interpret those verses amounting to eisegesis. The parable itself gives the reasons why people no longer believe but fall away. It refers to their reactions/actions based life's changing circumstances and not on their destiny as the cause. When Scripture interprets itself, we need not insert our own interpretation.

Not true. This is the robotic straw man argument against Calvinism. I really don't think you understand the concept of Eternal Security. The reality of human decisions and human responsibility is in no way diminished by something that goes on behind the scenes. Eternal security is not a modification of the reality that we see. It's a deeper understanding of the reality that we don't see.

A man who is predestined to salvation will not take the mark. We don't know who has Eternal Security, apart from seeing the result of its effect. Taking the Mark of the Beast is formidable evidence against it.

As I wrote earlier, you don't know if you are ultimately saved so you do not possess any assurance at all do you? You and I know that if we take the mark we ain't gonna be saved. Given your theology, no believer has any assurance at all that they are saved because only the elect persevere. One of the fatal flaws in Calvinism is the presumption that those who fall away were never believers in the first place since they did not persevere. While that assumption is indeed true is SOME cases, it is not true in ALL cases. That would be like saying since some chickens lay brown eggs, all chickens lay brown eggs which is of course a logical fallacy. So while perseverance is indeed required, it does not logically nor scripturally entail that those who do not persevere were never believers. A genuine believer can persevere up until the time he/she chooses to take the mark at which point he/she has apostatized from the faith. It does not by necessity mean he/she was never a believer.

 

[ladodgers6]

How does total depravity play out in a Christian's life. Is a Christian STILL totally depraved? Does God consider a Christian a sinner or a saint?

The first Adam who God made a Covenant of Works; which also stipulated Life for obedience, and death disobedience. Along with that came blessings of obedience; access to the tree of Life and enter Sabbath Rest with God. And curses for disobedience, being sentenced to condemnation & death, suffering, cast out of the Garden Temple that was sealed closed and guarded by Cherubim.

Adam & Eve along with all they progeny fell from God's Grace into darkness of sin and death. Our whole being became depraved in sin; every part of man was affected by sin. Now being convicted Law-Breakers under the curse of the Law. We are in bondage to sin. With no since of hope in ourselves to free ourselves from this plight.

So God made another Covenant with the Second Adam; a Covenant of Grace. Where Christ will restore us from the curse of the Law, and free us from its bondage. Christ came to fulfill the broken Covenant of Works with Perfect Obedience and merited a Kingdom; a people of his own. Now Christians are no longer under the condemnation of the Law, and FREE in Christ! Because Christ our Covenantal King freed us from bondage through His passive and active Obedience. And has opened the ancient doors to the Garden Temple once again for us to enter Sabbath Rest with Him and our Father in heaven forever!!!!

Amen!!!!