Regarding Regeneration, Total Depravity and the Good News

[janxharris]

Can anyone repent and turn to Christ and believe without being regenerated (born again)?

1. If they can, then the Reformed doctrine of 'total depravity' is not total.
2. If they can't, then the good news is bad news for those God decided would not be regenerated.

 

[gmm4j]

Amen. Total depravity does not mean Total Inability.

 

[janxharris]

Amen. Total depravity does not mean Total Inability.

'Tis a very quiet debating room...would appreciate any feedback

 

[Eddie L]

'Tis a very quiet debating room...would appreciate any feedback

Why?

 

[janxharris]

Why?

 

[oworm]

The doctrine of total depravity simply put, just means that sin has permeated every faculty of mans being. His nature is corrupted by sin to such an extent that even the good that he does is often tainted by a desire to draw attention to himself for the purposes of self aggrandizement. And yes there are those in the church who have an external appearance of religiosity so much so that it appears they have chosen Christ. Scripture (and history) is full of examples. Jesus said that there would be tares amongst the wheat and that they would not be rooted out until the harvest.

 

[JM]

Amen. Total depravity does not mean Total Inability.

Total depravity, total inability (John 6 'No man is able'), total corruption, etc.all refer to the same doctrine. You are not using the term accurately. We are corrupt because of sin and lack the ability to choose the good and please God.

 

[stenerson]

We are born dead in trespasses and sins. We are blinded by the god (Satan) of this world. Our hearts are deceitful and wicked above all things. We are slaves to sin. There is not one that seeks God, no not one. Every thought of the heart of man is only evil continually. The list goes on and on.
How much clearer can scripture be concerning the state of fallen man.
Martin Luther wrote a book called Bondage of the Will.
Jonathon Edwards wrote Freedom of the Will. They both basically said the same thing, but Edwards language and use of terms I believe is more accurate.
There's nothing wrong with our faculty of will. We always choose freely. Even with a gun to our heads we choose freely.
The problem is our hearts and dispositions. We choose according to what we love , desire, or are inclined towards. When God takes out our hearts of stone and replaces with living hearts we keep choosing freely. That choice is dictated by our new heart, loves, disposition etc. We are no longer blind and now see the excellency and superiority of Christ and His Kingdom.

 

[TheSeabass]

Can anyone repent and turn to Christ and believe without being regenerated (born again)?

1. If they can, then the Reformed doctrine of 'total depravity' is not total.
2. If they can't, then the good news is bad news for those God decided would not be regenerated.

Those Jews in Acts 2 to whom Peter preached did not have total depravity or inability in them at all.

These Jews were the ones Peter accused of crucifying the Messiah with their own wicked hands, they were in a lost state. In while in that lost state they were willing to listen to Peter, they were able to understand Peter, their hearts were pricked by Peter's message and they were will to ask what they must do to be saved and were willing and able to obey Peter's commands of verse 38.

In Acts 7 Stephen preached to lost men also. And upon hearing those words of Stephen, verse 54 says they "When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth."

They were willing to listen to Stephen's words. They heard those words, ie,they understood clearly what he was saying and as a result they took him out and murdered him by stoning. They did not murder Stephen because they did not have the inability to understand what he was saying but did so for they did have the ability to understand.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Those Jews in Acts 2 to whom Peter preached did not have total depravity or inability in them at all.

These Jews were the ones Peter accused of crucifying the Messiah with their own wicked hands, they were in a lost state. In while in that lost state they were willing to listen to Peter, they were able to understand Peter, their hearts were pricked by Peter's message and they were will to ask what they must do to be saved and were willing and able to obey Peter's commands of verse 38.

In Acts 7 Stephen preached to lost men also. And upon hearing those words of Stephen, verse 54 says they "When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth."

They were willing to listen to Stephen's words. They heard those words, ie,they understood clearly what he was saying and as a result they took him out and murdered him by stoning. They did not murder Stephen because they did not have the inability to understand what he was saying but did so for they did have the ability to understand.

No one said that man has a total lack of ability t understand/comprehend anything. Having said that though, did those who stoned Stephen actually understand what they were doing?

 

[JM]

I have started answering TheSeaBass here:

Is "Calvinism" Biblical?

 

[TheSeabass]

No one said that man has a total lack of ability t understand/comprehend anything. Having said that though, did those who stoned Stephen actually understand what they were doing?

The "T" in TULIP does stand for "Total".

Those in Acts 7 did not murder Stephen for not know what was going on and being said. Instead they did understand what Stephen was saying, did not like is so much so they stoned him.

For those in Acts 2 or 7 there was no dpravity or inability of any kind. They did not need "Calvinistic regeneration" in order to hear, understand what was being said to them.

 

[JM]

The "T" in TULIP does stand for "Total".

Those in Acts 7 did not murder Stephen for not know what was going on and being said. Instead they did understand what Stephen was saying, did not like is so much so they stoned him.

Right, that proves the point of total inability or choose good, to do that which is according to nature. Rom. 7.21

For those in Acts 2 or 7 there was no dpravity or inability of any kind. They did not need "Calvinistic regeneration" in order to hear, understand what was being said to them.

That is your assertion, not a proven point, but something you are assuming. Total, libertarian freewill is being shoe horned into the passage.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[TheSeabass]

Right, that proves the point of total inability or choose good, to do that which is according to nature. Rom. 7.21

One is what he is according to how he sets his own mind not according to how he was passively born.

That is your assertion, not a proven point, but something you are assuming. Total, libertarian freewill is being shoe horned into the passage.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

There is nothing in the context of Acts 2 or Acts 7 that says the people being preached to were totally depraved and/or had the inability to listen and understand what was being preached while still in their lost state. Total depravity/inability would have to be added/assumed into those contexts.

In Acts 7, they did not murder Stephen because they did not understand a word he said, but they "heard"- (comprehend- perceive) Acts 7:54 and were cut to the heart for they did not like what Stephen was saying about them..."Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Resisting the Holy Ghost was a willful, conscience choice and not a passive state they were born into against their will causing them to resist the Holy Ghost.

 

[JM]

"uncircumcised in heart and ears" actually proves my point, they were unable...that's why the New Covenant in Jer. 31 promises that God will perform what they cannot do.

Thank you,

jm

 

[TheSeabass]

"uncircumcised in heart and ears" actually proves my point, they were unable...that's why the New Covenant in Jer. 31 promises that God will perform what they cannot do.

Thank you,

jm

They chose of their own free will to be uncircumcised in hearts and ears, not born that way. It would not be fair or just to condemn them for how they were passively born against their will.

These Jews to whom Stephen preached had been circumcised per the law of Moses and thought that they were of God due to that outward fleshly sign. Yet Stephen calls them uncircumcised as the heathen due to their free will rejection of God and Christ.

My point remains that even in their lost state they were able to understand what was preached to them just as those lost souls in Acts 2 could also understand what was preached to them by Peter. No depravity here any where nor the need for some supernatural act of the Holy Spirit to act upon the first before they could understand. In both Acts 2 and 7 they could understand the only difference was in how they reacted to what they understood. And that difference was due to their own free will choice not predetermined for them.

 

[JM]

They chose of their own free will to be uncircumcised in hearts and ears, not born that way.

So you claim they uncircumcised themselves? The word picture doesn't fit your man made theology.

Oh...that's right...they were born uncircumcised. Right. That's why God promises to circumcise those in the New Covenant Himself.

It's not a freewill decision, it's not decisional regeneration...that's a false teaching.

jm

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

'Tis a very quiet debating room...would appreciate any feedback

Can anyone repent and turn to Christ and believe without being regenerated (born again)?

Certainly.
To be born again requires the Father DOing this,
being born again is by the Father's Will,

not by man's will or efforts or actions or desires,
any more than
a baby is born because of something the baby does!

 

[TheSeabass]

So you claim they uncircumcised themselves? The word picture doesn't fit your man made theology.

Oh...that's right...they were born uncircumcised. Right. That's why God promises to circumcise those in the New Covenant Himself.

It's not a freewill decision, it's not decisional regeneration...that's a false teaching.

jm

Stephens' point to his Jewish listeners was they were no different in rejecting God as the uncircumcised Gentiles who also rejected God. So their uncircumcision had nothing to do with their fleshy circumcision but spiritually in their rejection of God.

"UNCIRCUMCISED IN HEART AND EARS"-They prided themselves on being circumcised, but their stubbornness and defiance in the face of the will of God, made them act like the uncircumcised heathen, who did not possess the utterances of God (Romans 2:25-29). Again, this is the same language that Moses and the prophets had used against Israel (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 6:10) "heathen still at heart and deaf to the truth" (NEB)
Dunagan Commentary

 

[DeaconDean]

One is what he is according to how he sets his own mind not according to how he was passively born.

That is not what King David said.

There is nothing in the context of Acts 2 or Acts 7 that says the people being preached to were totally depraved and/or had the inability to listen and understand what was being preached while still in their lost state. Total depravity/inability would have to be added/assumed into those contexts.

In Acts 7, they did not murder Stephen because they did not understand a word he said, but they "heard"- (comprehend- perceive) Acts 7:54 and were cut to the heart for they did not like what Stephen was saying about them..."Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Resisting the Holy Ghost was a willful, conscience choice and not a passive state they were born into against their will causing them to resist the Holy Ghost.

A good definition for "Total Depravity" has already been given. Why you overlooked it I don't know.

I will say this, however people often hear total depravity and associate it with the words utter and/or complete. Thinking that it means we say are as evil as they can be. A prime example would be Adolph Hitler.

"So the idea of total in total depravity doesn’t mean that all human beings are as wicked as they can possibly be. It means that the fall was so serious that it affects the whole person. The fallenness that captures and grips our human nature affects our bodies; that’s why we become ill and die."

Source

Now if I may, you also mentioned "inability". What we mean by that man of his own accord, could not come to God.

A man (or woman) can not just one day stop all sin, or even stop sinning and say, "I think I'm going to come to God."

No, scripture agrees on this also:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

Where is the work of the Holy Spirit? We have a clear outline of what that is given to us in scripture by Jesus Christ.

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:" -John 16:8 (KJV)

The word "reprove" above also means "to convict". Its the job of the Holy Spirit to "convict" man of his sins.

You mentioned Stephen from Acts and the actions of the crowd.

Show me, if you can, the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting the crowd of their sins.

How many times have you had to listen to a song before you actually heard what the song said?

Same thing here, how many times does a sinner go to church and "listen" to what is being preached before they actually "hear" what is being preached?

Without the work of the Holy Spirit, the crowd was not able, or had the ability to move towards God.

God is the one who draws. Man don't draw God to him.

Facts are, the Holy Spirit was not working on this crowd, and God was not drawing them.

God Bless

Till all are one.