Total depravity

[Romanbear]

This pedal of the tulip says man is unable to respond to the general call because he doesn't even hear it. The reason Calvinist say is, because man is dead in his own sins,and dead men can't hear. If men are dead in there sins and they can't hear then wouldn't you say that men can't respond because of it?. If this is so, then the men who are lost are not responsible and are being sent to hell unfairly.
What say you?
In Christ
Romanbear

 

[Sharky]

No that is just an excuse. Depravity doesn't totally lose you. It's that if you truely, utterly beleive that sin is right for instance lust, then fine. God's not going to stop you. He'll let you keep going until you lose yourself. God gives you plenty of warning and convictions.

It's silly to think God will let you get totally lost because that's what He DOESN'T want.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

A Tiptoe Through TULIP
by James Akin​

Predestination means many things to many people. All Christian churches believe in some form of predestination, because the Bible uses the term [1], but what predestination is and how it works are in dispute.

In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism [2]. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches [3].

Even though Calvinists are a minority among Protestants today, their view has had enormous influence, especially in this country. This is partly because the Puritans and the Baptists who helped found America were Calvinists, but it is also because Calvinism traditionally has been found among the more intellectual Protestants, giving it a special influence.

Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which individuals will accept his offer of salvation. These people are known as "the elect" [4]. They are not saved against their will. It is because God has chosen them that they will desire to come to him in the first place. Those who are not among the elect, "the reprobate," will not desire to come to God, will not do so, and thus will not be saved [5].

Arminians claim God predestines people by pronouncing (but not deciding) who will accept salvation. He makes this pronouncement using his foreknowledge, which enables him to see what people will do in the future. He sees who will choose to accept his offer of salvation. The people who God knows will repent are those he regards as his "elect" or "chosen" people.

The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is often fierce. These groups frequently accuse each other of teaching a false gospel, at least on a theoretical level, although on a practical level there is little difference between the two since bonow about these subjects: First, Catholics are often attacked by Calvinists who misunderstand the Catholic position on these issues. Second, Catholics often misunderstand the teaching of their own Church on predestination. Third, in recent years there has been a large number of Calvinists who have become Catholics [8]. By understanding Calvinism better, Catholics can help more Calvinists make the jump.


Total depravity

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love [9].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term "total depravity" to describe the doctrine [10], he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so [11].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere [12].


Unconditional election

The doctrine of unconditional election means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will [13]. God chooses whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.

To show that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, Calvinists cite passages such as Romans 9:15-18, which says, "[The Lord] says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.... So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills [14]."

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'" [15]

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught [16].

The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema.... If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema." [17]


Limited Atonement

Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25) [18].

One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. A person may be said to have given himself for one person or group without denying that he gave himself for others as well [19]. Biblical proof of this principle is found in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me," not at all implying that Christ did not also give himself for other people. That Christ is said to have given himself in a special way for his sheep, his friends, or the Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also give himself for all men in a different way.

The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church [20], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.

Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" [21]

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell.

The difference between the atonement's sufficiency and its efficiency accounts for Paul's statement that God is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." [22] God is the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." [23]

A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross, Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case. [24] A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God intended it to be this way. [25] While a Catholic could not say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended it to be sufficient for all). [26]


Irresistible Grace

Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. For this reason many have called this the doctrine of irresistible grace.

This designation has the drawback of making it sound as though God forces people against their will to come to him (like a policeman shouting, "Resistance is useless! Throw down your weapons and surrender!") The designation also sounds unbiblical, since Scripture indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!" [27]

For this reason many Calvinists are displeased with the phrase "irresistible grace." Some have proposed alternatives. Loraine Boettner, perhaps best known to readers of This Rock as the author of the wildly inaccurate Roman Catholicism, prefers "efficacious grace." [28] The idea is that God's enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation.

This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. [29] Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God's enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man's free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious. [30]

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.'" [31] Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, "ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." [32]


Perseverance of the saints

Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life. This doctrine is normally called the perseverance of the saints. [33] All those who are at any time saints (in a state of sanctifying grace, to use Catholic terminology) will remain so forever. No matter what trials they face, they will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally secure. [34]

Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists point out that when we become Christians we become God's children. They infer that, just as a child's position in the family is secure, our position in God's family is secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will not kick us out.

This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove what it is supposed to. Children do not have "eternal security" in their families. First, they can be disowned. Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a child can leave the house on his own, disown his parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third, children can die; we, as God's children, can die spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually "born again." [35]

Calvinists also use Bible passages to teach perseverance of the saints. The chief ones are John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39. The Calvinist interpretation of these passages takes them out of context [36], and there are numerous other exegetical problems with their interpretation. [37]

Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must persevere to the end? This involves a confusion about what people are predestined to: Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation? The two are not the same. A person might be predestined to one, but this does not mean he is predestined necessarily to the other. [38] One must define which kind of predestination is being discussed.

If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely come to God (because they were predestined to initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because they were not predestined to final salvation). [39] Either way, predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. [40] There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to "believe for a while" but "in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). [41]

A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their "saintification") completed. [42] If one defines "saint" in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance."

The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. [43] Aquinas (and even Molina) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. [44] Aquinas said, "Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect." [45] But not all who come to God receive this grace.

Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is "the abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have this perseverance man...needs the divine assistance guiding and guarding him against the attacks of the passions...[A]fter anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not give." [46]

The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite these men as "Calvinists before Calvin." While they did hold high views of predestination, they did not draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace. [47] Instead, their faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.

If one defines "saint" as one who will have his "saintification" completed, a Catholic can say he believes in a "perseverance of the saints" (all and only the people predestined to be saints will persevere). But because of the historic associations of the phrase it is advisable to make some change in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic theology those who will persevere are called "the predestined" or "the elect," one might replace "perseverance of the saints" with "perseverance of the predestined" or, better, with "perseverance of the elect."


A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP:



T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)

U = Unconditional election

L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)

I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)

P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).


There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance. [48]


ENDNOTES:


1. See Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5, 11. For the Catholic Church's teaching on predestination see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 242-244, and William G. Most, Catholic Apologetics Today, 114-122.

2. Calvinists are followers of John Calvin (1509-1564). Arminians are followers of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), not people from the Republic of Armenia.

3. In Catholic circles, the two major groups discussing predestination are the Thomists and the Molinists, the followers of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Luis de Molina (1536-1600). Thomists emphasize the role of grace, while Molinists emphasize free will. Neither school ignores grace or free will.

4. From the Greek word eklektos, which means "chosen."

5. Calvinists are sometimes wrongly criticized as teaching that a person can be unconcerned about his salvation since he is already either among the elect or the reprobate. According to a Calvinist it would be a mistake for a person to say, "Well, if God chooses me, I'll be saved, and if he doesn't, I won't, so I can sit back and do nothing." A person who said this until his death would show he was not one of the elect because he never did the things, such as repenting and trusting God, which are necessary for salvation.

6. Among Catholics the discussion has been much more peaceful. Since the controversy over grace in the late 1500s and early 1600s, Thomists and Molinists have been forbidden to accuse each other of heresy. In 1748 the Church declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism to be acceptable Catholic teachings.

7. There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or "four-point Calvinists," who hold all of TULIP except for "L."

8. Including Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others.

9. There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents' discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards.

10. That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term "radical corruption," although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term "total inability."

11. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: "For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary" (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that "as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) and that "man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that "without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him" (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God's grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God.

12. Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I-II:109:2-10.

13. The Arminians, one will recall, said God bases it on his knowledge of what individuals will do in the future.

14. Catholics understand this hardening in terms of Romans 1:20-32, where Paul repeatedly states God gave pagans up to their sinful desires after they refused to acknowledge him. See also James 1:13.

15. ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.

16. ST 1:23:3.

17. Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17. The same points were taught by the Second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853), and the third Council of Valencia (855), although none of these were ecumenical councils, though the canons of II Orange are normally considered infallible due to their special papal reception.

18. Calvinists view these groups as identical with the elect. This assumption is false. Not all who are at one time Christ's sheep or Christ's friends remain so (see below on perseverance of the saints). Similarly, not all who are in the Church are among the elect.

19. Suppose a father sacrifices his life in order to save an endangered group of people that includes his family plus two friends. He might be said to have given himself for his family, even though the group he saved also included other people.

20. See Ott, 188f. 21. ST III:48:2.

22. 1 Timothy 4:10.

23. Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6.

24. Matthew 18:7-9, 22:13, 24:40f, 51, 25:30, Mark 9:48, Luke 3:17, 16:19-31, and especially Matthew 7:13f, 26:24, Luke 13:23ff, and Acts 1:25.

25. Although one must be sure to maintain that God desires the salvation of all men, as the Catholic Church teaches. 1 Timothy 2:4 states God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." See also Ezekiel 33:11. This does not conflict with God's intent to save only some, since a person may desire one thing but intend another. A father may desire to not punish his son, but he may intend to do so nonetheless.

26. Some Calvinists are unhappy with the statement that the atonement is limited. They prefer saying that Christ made a "particular redemption" rather than a "limited atonement." These mean the same thing, but the former destroys the TULIP acrostic, so the latter is normally used.

27. See also Sirach 15:11-20, Matthew 23:37.

28. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932), ch. 8, "Efficacious Grace."

29. Some Molinists, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, almost have bee Thomists. they agreed with almost all that Thomism says, such as its affirmation of unconditional election, but they resisted the idea that grace is intrinsically efficacious.

30. One should note Thomists do believe in free will, although not the sort Molinists believe in. They claim God's grace establishes what will be freely chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will's freedom. Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature," De Veritatis 22:9.

31. ST I-II:112:3.

32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being associated with this paschal mystery" means being saved.

33. Many Calvinists prefer the phrase "preservation of the saints" since it puts emphasis on God's preservation of the saints rather than on the saints' efforts in persevering (which is thought to smack of "works-salvation"). This often results in a "holier-than-thou" attitude ("Look how holy I am; I place the emphasis on God's action, not man's"). But Scripture normally uses a human point of view. It calls men to repent, have faith, convert, and persevere. When one insists on preservation-language over perseverance-language, one is actually taking a holier-than-thou attitude, because the one who wrote Scripture used perseverance-language more than preservation-language. In effect one is playing spiritual one-upmanship with Scripture and the one who wrote Scripture.

34. This differs from the "once saved, always saved" teaching common in Baptist circles. According to that theory, a person never can lose his salvation, no matter what he does. Even if he leaves the faith and renounces Christ he will be saved. Perseverance of the saints states that, while a person will lose his salvation if he fails to persevere in faith and holiness, all who do come to God will persevere. If a person does not persevere, it shows he did not come to God in the first place. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21, which say a person will not inherit the kingdom if he commits certain sins, are understood to mean that, if one habitually commits these sins, he was never a true Christian, no matter how sincere he appeared. Both "once saved, always saved" and perseverance of the saints teach "eternal security," but they are not the same. Calvinism admits there are mortal sins, such as failure to persevere, but says that no one who is saved commits these sins. "Once saved, always saved" says no sins would be mortal for a Christian, even in principle.

35. Elements of these responses are brought together in Luke 15, where the prodigal son begins as a son, then leaves the family and is spoken of by the father as "dead," only to return to the family and be spoken of as being "alive again" (Luke 15:24, 32). Christ teaches we can be sons, die spiritually by severing our ties to the family, then come back and be alive again--spiritually resurrected.

36. John 6:37-38 and 10:27-29 are taken out of context with John 15:1-6, which states Christians are branches in the vine which is Christ (v. 5), that God removes every branch from Christ which does not bear fruit (v. 2), and that the destiny of these branches is to be burned (v. 6). Romans 8:35-39 is taken out of context with Romans 11:20-24, where Paul compares spiritual Israel to an olive tree and states that since certain branches of spiritual Israel were broken off because of unbelief in Christ (v. 20), Christians will not be spared if they fall into unbelief (v. 21), but will be cut off (v. 22). The branches which had been broken off may be grafted in again (vv. 23-24). Romans 8:35-39 is also taken out of context with Romans 8:12f, 17, and 14:15, 20.

37. For further discussion see Robert Shank, Life in the Son (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989) and Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 348ff. Both authors are Baptists who believe in conditional security, not eternal security.

38. For example, if a person was predestined to enter my living room, it would not mean he was predestined to remain forever in my living room.

39. Catholic theology has defined "predestined" to mean "predestined to final salvation." Thus those who will end up with God in heaven are spoken of as "the predestined" or "the elect." That a person experiences salvation at some point does not mean he is among the predestined (those God has chosen to persevere to the end).

40. Once the philosophical issue is cleared up, we can evaluate the teaching of Scripture objectively. When we do so, it is clear there are numerous indications in the Bible that a person can lose salvation. We already have mentioned John 15:1-6, Romans 8:12f, 17, 11:20-24, and 14:15-20. There are many more. Robert Shank gives a list of eighty-five passages he believes will, if carefully interpreted in context, show that loss of salvation is possible; see Shank, 333-337.

41. I recognized this fact even when I was an ardent Protestant.

42. "Sanctification" and "saintification" are the same word in Greek. When one has been completely sanctified (made holy), one has become a saint in the fullest sense of the word. Since this happens only in heaven, it corresponds to the common Catholic usage of the term "saint."

43. Trent's Decree of Justification, canon 16, speaks of "that great and special gift of final perseverance," and chapter 13 of the decree speaks of "the gift of perseverance of which it is written: 'He who perseveres to the end shall be saved [Matt. 10:22, 24:13],' which cannot be obtained from anyone except from him who is able to make him who stands to stand [Rom. 14:4]."

44. Aquinas said it always saves a person because of the kind of grace it is; Molina said it always saves a person because God only gives it to those whom he knows will respond to it. But the effect is the same: The gift of final perseverance always works.

45. ST I:23:6.

46. ST I-II:109:10.

47. The fact Calvinists are not aware of this shows a lack of scholarship. Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul attempts to redefine Calvinism as the "Augustinian" view. While Calvin's view of predestination might be a variation of Augustine's view, the two are not the same. Augustine did not believe in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverance of the saints," and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding was new with Calvin. For an accurate historical discussion of perseverance of the saints, see J. J. Davis's article "Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine," in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991), 213-228. Davis is himself a Calvinist, and it is fitting a Calvinist help correct the errors of other Calvinists on the history of their doctrine.

48. This has important applications for Calvinists who are thinking about entering the Church, and it has implications for Catholics who want to know what the Church requires them to believe and how they might defend the Church against anti-Catholic Calvinists. For an example of how Thomism can be used to refute Calvinist attacks on the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences, see my article "Fatally Flawed Thinking" (This Rock, July 1993). The article critiques The Fatal Flaw, a book by James White, a Calvinist and a professional anti-Catholic. For further reading on Catholic teaching in this area, see Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (St. Louis: Herder, 1939). Pope John Paul II studied and wrote his dissertation under Garrigou-Lagrange.

 

[Yukerboy]

Excellent....let's look at what the Bible says.

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[2] God made you[3] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.

It is God taking the action. We were dead and made alive. Dead men don't make themselves come to life.

John 1:12-13 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

There is no decision we can make to come to God. We are totally depraved.

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

No matter how bad we want it, no matter how much effort we put in, we can't get it. We are totally depraved. We cannot choose to come to God.

John 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

The death knell to conflicting beliefs out of the mouth of Christ.

Romanbear, what you must come to understand, and it was difficult for me to do so, is that God's sense of fairness is not our sense of fairness. We cannot comprehend God's sense of fairness.

God allowed Satan to kill Job's wife and children. Was that fair to them? To Job? Not tome, but to God it was.

God told the Israelites to go into Canaan and kill every man, woman, and child in the city. Was that fair? Killing babies? No, not to me, but I have faith that I will understand God's reasoning for killing what seemed to be innocent children after I go to Him.

Yuke

 

[Drotar]

Excellent Jeffrey Lloyd. I am glad that you posted that. I read that chapter, I believe the book itself is called... The Salvation Controversy. I happened to read it in a Catholic bookstore out of curiousity.

Oooh, bad choice. Really bad choice. For a rebuttal of Calvinism, that is probably one of the most cursory and lightest rebuttals I have read.

I remember also, if I recall correctly, that he flat out says that Catholics believe in predestination AND total depravity. I remember because I went to the owner of the store and asked about that. I suggest you read that more carefully. I really wish that s0uljah was stil here. He would have gotten a kick out of that passage.


What's the Calvinistic teaching of free will? Here goes. I'm working on being an author, and here is a work on total depravity. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

Article II: Original Sin


Only in the more recent centuries has the doctrine of original sin been a subject of great debate. And truly, the reason why is because there is a great misunderstanding of what the doctrine truly claims. The great Reformer John Calvin wrote a definition that is just as fitting today as it was about 500 years ago: “Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh.’ [Gal. 5:19]” (Calvin,251). To better explain, original sin deals with the hereditary aspect of depravity. Note that in no part of the definition is there a mention of the sin itself being passed down as hereditary, as many opponents of the doctrine may ignorantly charge. It is the resulting nature, a nature that is sinful, that each inherits as his birthright. Calvin also wrote:This sin became His nature, and as a result of it being ‘diffuse[d] into all parts of the soul,’ he could not help but pass this down to the next generation. His very seed was infected with that same nature, that same evil corruption that was his inheritance....Therefore all of us who have descended from impure seed are born infected with the contagion of sin. (Calvin, 248).What the early church fathers coined as “original sin” deals with the aspect of whether or not the sin nature resulting from the Fall of man is inherent.

The doctrine of original sin personally, and mutually, links us, and all of mankind to the sin and Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden. This doctrine is our personal ignominious connection to the Fall. You could say from a genetic standpoint that both of our very first biological parents were infected with a dominantly inherited disorder.The proof of this is obvious, because it is the nature and instincts of infants to act in a rebellious and disrespectful way. This is their universal nature. They must be taught and disciplined otherwise to obey the law which God Himself has, as the prophets wrote, “written on every man’s heart.” In fact, it is said that the only thing that makes an infant cute is that it’s small. A baby would, if it could, strangle the very parents that hold it in response to hunger. What is the very most destructive thing imaginable? I think it would be an omnipotent infant- an all-powerful human with no sense of conscience or morality. I promise that a baby granted such immense inexhaustible power would not begin the construction of New Jerusalem. If an infant were born 150 feet tall, and stuck in downtown New York City, King Kong and Godzilla wouldn’t have sold at the box office. What makes an infant really cute is that he or she is small. As King David wrote, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as they are born, speaking lies. [Ps. 58:3]”

Jonathon Edwards is the theologian I consider to have dedicated more to the field of original sin than any other (with the exception of Augustine), The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended being his magnum opus. One of the many arguments that he made in support of original sin, in conjunction with his Scriptural support, is the blatantly obvious presence we witness of sin on a universal scale. It crosses cultural boundaries to all men and women of every race. In fact, it would suffice to say that original sin is, by definition,the universality of sin! The fact is that we simply never observe a culture or person who is sinless, with the exception of He who was born from above. But why would that be, unless a sin nature is inherited?

“If man is good at the core of his heart and evil is peripheral, tangent, or accidental, why does not the core win out over the tangent, the substance over the accidents?” (Sproul, Willing to Believe, 149).

To simplify, if all men are born free from a sinful nature, why is no man perfect? Conversely, if we are to assume and read in the Scriptures that men are not born with a nature bound to evil, then what warrants the difficulty we may have in observing the occurrence of evil in the world? If men are born with a sin nature, why aren’t we witnessing the downfall of morality within our civilizations? ...Did I just ask that? Wilikers! I do get dizzy sometimes following circular reasoning!

We need to honestly ask ourselves, which is more Biblical: the doctrine of original sin, or the belief that every birth is some sort of immaculate conception (a sinless child naturally born of sinful parents)?

Objection 1: Children are not born with original sin, nor is it hereditary, but it is something rather than children learn through example.

Objection 2: Original sin teaches that all men are rendered condemnation through the sin of one man. How can all men deserve condemnation because of one man’s sin?

Objection 3: People who believe in original sin believe that God sends babies to condemnation.


Response to Objection 1: Pelagius, who is St. Augustine’s famous pen pal, invented this imitation propagation theology. He was a British monk and also a eunuch. His main area of focus was on morality, and he believed that God would never bestow upon man commands which we are entirely incapable of. After having read the words of Jesus, which said “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. [Matt. 5:48].” he was forced to explain that all men are entirely capable of moral perfection. Of course, he did not preach this with complete foreknowledge on the theological problems that would consequentially develop.

He did have a noble cause for his teachings, to be perfectly fair; he wanted men and women to live moral lives without making excuses about their inability to serve God. In his system however, it is entirely possible to remove Jesus from the picture of Christianity, and the ideal of plan of salvation remain essentially unchanged. His view was that men are capable of perfect obedience, and that a sin nature is not hereditary, but rather learned. This teaching is famously, or rather more infamously known as Pelagianism, named after this monk. Consequentially, this leaves room for the teaching that unregenerate men are able to serve God without necessary help from the Divine. Pelagius was partially right that of course- Augustinianism may generate complaints and excuses from impious Christians that fail to meet their moral obligations. But Pelagianism on the other hand, in perfect theory, will pragmatically generate unbridled arrogance and pride. It will, in its entire practicality, discourage prayer, dependence on God, or gratitude towards all three Persons of the Godhead, individually and collectively. In practice, it’s flaw is that it takes the relationship out of Christianity.

That aside, it’s not as if the Scriptures are silent on this issue. If you’re in need of an answer to the question, “What does the Bible teach?”, I cannot stress enough the futility- there isno question. What with the Scripture’s immense support on the universality of sin and the sinfulness of man, I would think the issue to be at rest, or at least fairly one-sided. There very well may be more support for this doctrine than any other on the subject. I try to confine the number of verses I use to less than ten since a number larger than such tempts readers to merely skip over the list of verses altogether, and they may be tempted to ignore what the Word of God states about the issue. But at the end of this article, there is a short list of Scriptural support.Fortunately, Pelagianism is virtually a dead controversy, we can safely say. In fact, I’ve never personally met a Pelagian. But this hollow heresy is important in understanding the roots and history of original sin. Semi-Pelagianism however, has had an unprecedented resurgence in modern Christendom. It is essentially Arminianism, which I will discuss thoroughly in the chapter on soteriology.

Response to Objection 2: This objection I personally enjoy hearing, not because the answer is simple, but because it indicates lucid thinking on the proponent’s part. The Scriptures make it clear that each will be rendered according to his own deeds [Rom. 2:6]. Verses such as this are entirely prevalent. This is a common misunderstanding of the teaching of the Bible.If I didn’t believe that the death of Christ covered the judicial penalty of Adam’s sin after death, then I would be a Pelagian along with many others. By the way, that is the honest answer to the question. This is covered later in the article called “Limited Atonement.”

Rather than give away all the exciting facts linked to soteriology away here, I’ll suffice to say that the penalty of Adam’s sin was washed away from with the blood of Christ as a result of His atonement. This fits perfectly with key Scriptural passages we see in Romans 5, the Scriptural citadel for original sin. The penalty of Adam’s sin is not hereditary. The effect of the fallen nature however is. So as a matter of fact, it is kind of inappropriate to call this doctrine original sin, because it is in actuality not a sin but a sin nature that is the topic of discussion.Response to Objection 3: There could truly be nothing more far from the truth. No theologian I have ever heard of has ever believed such. This attack against original sin is a misunderstanding of the definition of the doctrine itself. Remember that original sin does not teach the passing down of a sin itself, but rather the passing down of physical, mental, and spiritual like unto the parents. If the parents physically were deteriorating and dying, mentally were hindered from the perfect knowledge of God, and spiritually were inclined towards sin, then how could the physical, mental, and spiritual components passed down be pure? The penalty for the sin itself will be rendered to only the one who committed it. But as for the nature of man and the will of man, that will, and must, be passed down in a like manner. If two parents possess a completely sinful nature, then the child likewise will possess a sin nature. And that is the doctrine of original sin, not the passing down of the sin of Adam, but the passing down of a common norm for human nature.

Scriptural Support

“And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing. as I have done.” -Genesis 8:21

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!” -Job 14:4

“What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous?” -Job 15:4

“The fool said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.” -Psalm 14:1

“Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” -Psalm 51:5

“The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” -Psalm 58:3

“So I said, ‘Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people with unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.’” -Isaiah 6:5

“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, no, not one.” -Romans 3:9-10

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all have sinned.” -Romans 5:12

"Among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath.” -Ephesians 2:3

 

[Drotar]

Article III: Total Depravity​

Primarily the Fall of man affected two key functions, one deontological and the other soteriological- that is, one area relates to our moral obligation, the other is the very cornerstone to our salvation. This article will go over how the area of man and his moral obligation was affected. This doctrine is total depravity- the consummate wickedness of man’s desires towards sin and the inability to combat the sinful desires of our nature that we all are born with, without the divine intervention of God. This doctrine “throws cold water” on everybody because its very point of emphasis is the depraved moral helplessness of us all and the inherent wickedness of humankind. This accounts for my original rejection of the doctrine. The problem was not because my objections were Biblical inconsistencies with the doctrine of total depravity, but rather my pride and in large part my misunderstandings of the doctrine. But allow me to explain what led me to God’s truth.

This slavery towards evil that we speak of does not result from Satan forcing us to do evil. And God forbid the notion that our heavenly Father forces us to sin. Slavery gives us the imagery of a person being violently forced against their will to fulfill their master’s desires. Opponents of total depravity charge that the doctrine teaches that man cannot make choices and that according to predestination we are forced to act one way or another. On the contrary, we earnestly believe that we’re able to choose for ourselves. Free will can be defined as the ability to do whatever it is we want to without ever being forced to act contrary. The real difference is that we believe that which man naturally desires is sin, since we are fallen by nature. In actuality, we’re not slaves because we have no free will or ability to do what we want; we’re totally depraved because we have the free ability to do what we desire. We do not deny free will, but actually acknowledge that total depravity exists as a direct result of free will. That which we want and desire is a reflection of the fallen nature that we inherited.

These next paragraphs are probably some of the deepest philosophies within this book, and so read slowly and think carefully. I’m trying to write this in the most reader-friendly way possible: Man’s decisions are made in regard to various aspects, such as our thoughts, our feelings, and our environment. These conflict with each other, and whatever gives us the strongest compulsion towards a particular action, we will choose to oblige. We will always choose whatever weighs up to be the strongest compulsion towards action. It is man’s natural tendency to always do that which most compels us most, or what Jonathon Edwards calls our “strongest motive.” We choose to study for finals because we know we need a good grade to get to a good school, we choose to date and marry because we fall in love, we choose to run because there’s a fire. If you carefully examine each choice you make, you’ll soon realize that each of these different facets directly affect our decisions. Most of the time they conflict. When they do, whichever one or two or three factors drive us to a certain compulsion in the strongest manner will be acted upon. As R. C. Sproul put this,

“It is determined in the sense that those choices are caused by the motive that is the strongest one in the mind at the moment of choosing. (Sproul, 159).

Here’s a very practical example I actually found myself in not too far back: Visualize yourself at church where the congregation is taking a vote to decide whether they should rebuild the church, and you are actively taking part. You must vote for rebuilding the church or vote against it. You want to vote to rebuild the church because you feel like it’s musty and crowded and needs more room for prospective members. But you also know that reconstruction of a religious institution is financially draining to the church’s budget and may cause the church to go into debt. On the other hand, you break into a cold sweat when you glance around the rest of the congregation, and everyone else has their hands in the air. Take the different factors that will influence your decision. You may act on your knowledge and understanding of potential financial problems (and vote to not rebuild the church), or on your feelings and environment (and vote to reconstruct the church). Whatever drives or compels you to act in a certain decision the most will produce that result. If you feel most strongly about ensuring the church does not make a financial mistake, then you will vote against the project. If you feel most strongly compelled to raise your hand because everyone else is doing it, and also because the church is too old and gloomy, then you’ll vote for the project. These three factors work in different manners in virtually every decision you make.

Isn’t it most interesting, that the One who may change the desires of our hearts, enlighten us with knowledge, and alter our environment is God alone? He who created our hearts, He who created our minds, He who created our environment, has the full ability to change and alter them. If God doesn’t want us to sin, he may give us His common grace; if He doesn’t want us to make a certain decision, He may change our thought processes. If God doesn’t want us to go to a picnic, He might make it rain, or make you desire to go home and cook, or simply fill your mind with the embarrassing memory of when you fell in the lake last time. You see, by changing one of these three different factors, our entire mood and desire to do something is changed altogether.
If all three of these factors are within His direct jurisdiction and sovereign control, then, by altering any of these three, He may encourage us to choose to act in a certain way, without any violation to our will. He may confirm that we will act in a way, while in no way forcing us to act in a certain manner, but by merely changing our environment, or our heart, or our minds, our will and natural choices will be confirmed in a certain manner which He has foreordained. The Bible is packed to the full with examples- of Jonah (who was engulfed by a storm and swallowed by a fish) and of Judas (whose heart was moved to betray Jesus), of Lydia (whose heart was opened) and of Lot (who learned of the destruction of his city), of Pharaoh (whose heart was hardened) and of Pilate (who stood before the crowd shouting “Crucify Him!”). In each example, God used different methods to change the hearts of the men and women above, and thus, affected their choices. In essence, God was sovereignly in control, yet Jonah, Judas, Lydia, Lot, Pharaoh, and Pilate all made decisions from their own free will to act in a particular manner.

In practicality, God may influence each of our decisions to accomplish the ends He desires. If God does not have sovereign control over the means, then how may He foreordain the ends? How is it that God can ordain what will happen in the end, unless He is in control of what actions leads up to it? The existence of prophecies and the book of Revelation themselves must testify that God must be in sovereign control if those prophecies are to be fulfilled.

The inventor of the above view of how man makes choices is to the best of my knowledge, the greatest native American theologian to date, Jonathon Edwards. His greatest contribution is in strengthening the doctrines of hamartiology. To quote,

To talk of the determination of the will supposes an effect, which must have a cause. If the will is determined, there is a determiner. This must be supposed to be intended even by them that say, the will determines itself. If it be so, the will is both determiner and determined; it is a cause that acts and produces effects upon itself, and is the object of its own influence and action. (Edwards, 141- Freedom of the Will)

To translate out of Puritan-ese, let me elaborate. The Fall of man gave man a fallen, totally depraved, sinful nature. This causes man’s desires to be evil, and this determines man’s will for a particular course of action. In other words, since man is depraved, man will naturally make all sinful choices, thus making all decisions uniformly the same. But if you’re Arminian, you have a problem because the will is supposed to be free and morally neutral. A desire, a thought, or something around you that prompts an action must have a sufficient cause. There must be a sufficient explanation as to what might cause a person’s heart to desire good or lust for evil, thus causing them to act good or act evil in certain circumstances. If the will is neither inclined towards good nor evil, then actions that are good or evil must have a cause. Surely the will cannot be both holy and unholy. If morally neutral, then there must be a first cause. If you believe that those first causes are directly related to the activities of God, then shake hands with Calvinism.
It would suffice to say that if man’s will is free, and neither perpetually prompted towards good nor evil, man should never have desires for good nor evil. If man does have such desires present, tugging in one direction, then there must be a cause. If the cause is an unnatural desire caused by the activity of someone else, then it is not us who can be at fault for our own actions, but the orchestrator. If, in Arminian theology the desires are present, then ultimately it is not man who is responsible for moral actions but God, and it is not man who is ultimately responsible for sinning, but Satan. If some Arminian states that God or Satan is this cause of our actions, then I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they are far more hyper-Calvinistic than I, because this defies the meaning of free will in both the Arminian and the Calvinist context! Our will would then be tossed to and fro, in one wind towards righteousness, in another towards immorality. It is not really a free will but a constant visage of the current victor of spiritual warfare for our hearts. I really only wish that most Arminians would be willing to see the dead end alley their theology naturally leads them into.

Ponder this. For every action, there is a cause. The will prompts us towards evil naturally, and good when God influences or enlightens us, or puts in our hearts the desire to act morally. Thus free will is never violated (since we act out what we want and choose to), God is ultimately in control (since He bears the reigns of regenerative and common grace), and man is responsible for his own actions (since the actions we made are our own choices)! You’ve got to love philosophy.
John Calvin wrote: “Man will then be spoken of as having this sort of free decision, not because he has free choice of good and evil, but because he acts wickedly by will, not by compulsion...for man not to be forced to serve sin, yet to be such a willing slave....” (Calvin, 264- emphasis added). So for the sake of clarity one last time, we believe in free will- we believe that men have the ability to choose to do whatever they want to. The real question is, what does man naturally desire? Good or evil or both? What we do deny is that men can make choices towards obedience, because as a result of a fallen nature they will never want to make choices towards obedience, unless something separate and greater than them counteracts it. The doctrine of total depravity is centered on the fact that man has an inability to do good without God’s help, something that is taught consistently throughout the Scriptures without fail. The question arises: “Does the fact that man cannot act righteous on his own without God’s help mean that man cannot be held accountable for acting in a sinful manner? After all, how can God hold man accountable for acting out what they do naturally?” Dr. Robert L. Reymond masterfully answers:

God deals with man according to his obligation, not according to the measure of
his ability. Before the Fall, man had both the obligation and the ability to obey
God. As a result of the Fall, he retained the former but lost the latter....His
obligation to obey God remains intact. If God dealt with man today according to
his ability to obey, he would have to reduce his moral demands to the vanishing
point. (Reymond, 454)

There’s the problem: if God dealt with man today according to his ability to obey, then he would be required to adjust His divine requirements of morality, and alter whatever standard of perfection and virtue that He has in order to well accompany the ability of men.

Defenders of semi-Pelagianism advocate a series of randomly assorted verses in which God commands His people to repent and choose righteousness. They rejoice in victory over verses that use the word “choose”- as if that’s some sort of proof for their theology. As Calvin confirmed above, total depravity does not deny that men can make choices. The fascinating part is that in the Biblical scheme, man is not supposed to be able to obey the Law perfectly. God knows we’re depraved and unable to follow the Law. He’s well aware we cannot obey the Law. But you see, that’s the point. Our inability to obey is the purpose of God imposing moral commands. The point of God giving 613 Levitical laws, the purpose of Jesus commanding the Pharisees to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect” is not because He actually anticipates perfect obedience and submission to all the laws or expects moral perfection from the Pharisees. Supporters of free will reason, “God would not make commands of people that they are incapable of following.” But the truth is that they are incapable of following and obeying on their own, and that’s exactly why God made that command. The unreachable standard is supposed to give man such an utter, overwhelming feeling of helplessness and despair, that it forces them on their knees and encourages them towards humility and dependence on God. The inability to follow the Law is supposed to be the reason why we need Jesus. Our constant sinful tendencies is supposed to encourage prayer. God has throughout history given commands that men could not act out on their own so that they learn to depend on God and accept Jesus when they are convicted of their sinfulness! If all men had...

 

[Drotar]

free will and capability to obey the law, then how many people would actually feel a dependent relationship with God and the conviction and need to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior? In fact, if all men could obey the law accordingly perfect, theoretically, you could remove Jesus, prayer, humility, and a dependent relationship with God from Christianity altogether. If men possessed the ability to follow the law and be perfect, having never sinned, then there would be no need to accept the atonement of Jesus at all. Ideally, one could remove Jesus from a theological system altogether that teaches man is capable of perfect obedience, with no harm done to their theology. What forces me to object semi-Pelagianism so vehemently is because it teaches a directly antithetical message that that of the Scriptures; it, in its most quintessential form, teaches that man is capable of obedience to God, and by doing so eliminates the urgent need to call out to God for help, and for those who follow free will to its logical ends, it may arouse the most ignorant pride known to both the saved and the unsaved. For people who believe that all men are wholly capable of obedience to the law, they have completely missed the point of Christianity- a deep relational dependency on God for wisdom, guidance and strength.

The classic Calvinistic example is of a tree and its fruit. Lorraine Boettner pointed out that one tree isn’t going to bear several types of fruit. We can expect to see an orange clumped together with more oranges, and one the other side of the tree- more oranges. I’ve never seen a tree that gave up peaches and apples. If you have, I’m happy for you because I’m sure there’s a great market for that. But theologically, it’s extremely inconsistent to believe that a fallen, unregenerate person will bear fruits of the Spirit and fruits of sin. To teach that men can of their own ability perform works of morality and also works of sin, then there is a large theological inconsistency. According to any form of Pelagianism, men are capable of both moral obedience and sin. This then implies that human nature is both moral and sinful- both partly holy and partly unholy. It cannot be both. We must make up our minds here. If human nature is entirely holy, you may and must then deny the authority of the Bible altogether. Thus a person cannot bear both the fruit of immorality and virtue, unless God Himself is invoking a person towards moral decency. As Christians, we have no monopoly on God. He moves through all men and women to accomplish His foreordained will.

The biggest misconception about total depravity is that this doctrine teaches that all men and women are 100% evil all the time to the superlative degree. This is what happens when someone teaches total depravity but forgetfully omits the doctrine of common grace, God’s provision of grace bestowed to all men and women, so that they will be moved towards favorable morality and virtue. Total depravity is not utter depravity. Thankfully, we do not observe the true evil that man is capable of because common grace intervenes, so that man does not act out how wicked they truly are by nature. If men followed wicked compulsions without any sort of divine interference, then yes, we would be utterly depraved. In fact, there are people who are utterly depraved. The living examples are Satan and his minions. Satan lacks the ability to act morally and repent. He is completely, and ironically, voluntarily bound to do evil. He cannot act morally, but at the same time this is because he wallows in sin and destruction voluntary. Satan and his demons are reprobate simply because God, in His perfect justice, has decided not to offer regenerative or common grace to him. They are destined for the lake of fire because it is what they must voluntary choose, because he will not, and can not repent. This is truly a sad thought. Yet at the same time, it encourages us to bow lower before the Most High. We too were in a depraved, fallen state but to the glory of God He changed us.

How does God decide to whom He gives His common grace to? I mean, we’re not all Ghandis, and we’re not all Hitlers. Clearly God dispenses His grace in unequal proportions to different men and women. This is where the attribute of God’s sovereignty comes into play; an attribute which has been buried, hidden away, and covered from the eyes of many Christians by the Pelaginan or semi-Pelagianism of mainstream Christianity. Many Christians, such as I once was I must confess, are uncomfortable at the thought that God has sovereignty. The Scriptures give clear indication that by His sovereign grace, He sustains us and gives us His grace and His spirit, so that we may experience and enjoy His love. Common grace is God’s provision of love to all men and women, that keeps our totally depraved natures from getting out of line.

Again, and for the last time, total depravity does not teach that men cannot make choices. Total depravity does teach that man’s choices, when left to carry out the fullness of their natural desires, are uniformly evil, because the nature is uniformly evil. Free will and total depravity are not antithetical statements- quite contrarily, they are co-dependent; total depravity exists because man has the ability to do that which he wants and desires! The issue is not whether we have a free will to act out our natural desires or not, but rather, what that nature we act out is exactly. If our nature is fallen, then naturally as a direct result of our free will, we will observe total depravity. Before the Fall, our will was free in the sense that our actions were both voluntary and morally capable of both sin and morality. As a result of the Fall, we “retained the former but lost the latter.” To state plainly, our ability to make choices to do what we desire directly results in total depravity. I find it slightly disturbing that some of my Calvinistic brethren can successfully brainwash themselves into denying our free will, because they seem to think that we must have only one or the other. Free will and total depravity are not antithetical or mutually exclusive statements but rather interdependent. Ponder this.

A perfect example that Calvin put into common practice, is that of our divine Creator whom we were made in the image of. Can God sin? I mean to say, does He possess the ability to? Well interestingly enough even opponents of total depravity say that God does not possess the ability to sin. This concept is so strictly condemned in the Scriptures that I think it would be degrading to even apologetically examine the question. We all know that God is perfect by definition; He is incapable of sinning. Now is this because God lacks free will? Is His will enslaved? God is righteous because He chooses to be, not because He is forced to. He merely acts out what is natural for Him. In other words, God’s perfect actions are a representation of His perfect nature. He chooses good uniformly, because he chooses to do so, not resulting from compulsion and not because He has to. So to conclude, let’s put two and two together. God acts holy by His free will, while at the same time it’s impossible for Him to sin- He possesses a holy nature, and thus performs holy acts. The demons act unholy because they choose to, while at the same time it’s impossible for them to act in a holy manner- they possess a fallen, sinful nature, and thus will voluntarily be bound to perform sinful, adulterated acts. The Bible states plain and simple that men possess a fallen, sinful nature, much like the demons. Men, fallen and depraved, naturally act in a fallen and depraved manner.

Objection 1: If we have no free will, then how did man fall in the Garden?

Objection 2: Well, whatever happened to “free will” then? Doesn’t free agency make sense?

Response to Objection 1: It never ceases to amaze me how often I here this. But the culprit here is merely miscommunication. I’ve heard even that “God crammed the fruit down their throats.” Men were not created totally depraved. It resulted from the Fall in the Garden. Prior to the Fall we were in a morally neutral state. The initial sin was a result of the abusing of free will. Thus, we lost it as a result, and continued to walk down that path of destruction we started to embark on. John Calvin wrote:Let us accordingly remember to impute our ruin to depravity of nature, in order that we may not accuse God Himself, the Author of nature. True, thisdeadly wound clings to nature, but it is a very important question whether the wound has been inflicted from the outside or has been present from the beginning. (Calvin, 254)

Response to Objection 2: Free agency is Biblical, in the sense that we have the ability to choose to do whatever we want. The big problem is that what our desires appropriately represent that of fallen men and women. Men do have the ability to change and strive towards morality with God’s direct assistance. Total depravity is merely the teaching that without that help, independent of God’s common grace, men cannot bear fruits of the Spirit. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. [2 Cor. 3:17].”

In fact, a far more serious issue arises from this “free will” problem, as defined by mainstream Christianity. To be perfectly clear, if the current course of the present lies in our free actions and choices, and is directly undetermined by God, then logically the future cannot be known by God. If men have irrevocable free will, and every person has free control of their operations that compose the sphere of influence in present events; to rephrase, if the present course of events is undetermined by God, but rather left for us to determine, how then pray tell can God foreordain things that will occur in the future course of time? The problem within our free will lies in the fact that the future cannot be shaped if it cannot be known. This problem is recognized by philosophical free-will proponents as well. As the apologist Dr. Gregory Boyd wrote in defense of the semi-Pelagian view,

“If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know. (Letters From a Skeptic, 30).”

In other words, God cannot know the future if our decisions are undetermined and up to our free decisions. He may know the potential choices we may make, but not the actual choice. Of course, the common question then is this: If God does not know the future, is it possible for Him to hold wrong views about it? The best and only answer I’ve ever heard in response for the defense of this view of free will, and at the same time the worst, is “God doesn’t think about the future.” Wow! As Christians, we really must try to steer back to Reformed values. I don’t like where the future of Christian doctrine is headed.

Scriptural Support“Then the Lord God saw that the wickedness of man was great on earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only in evil continually.” -Genesis 6:5

“What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous?” -Job 15:14

“For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.” -Ecclesiastes 7:20

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard change his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to evil.” -Jeremiah 13:23

“They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham’s descendents, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin.” -John 8:33-34

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires...for there is no truth in him/ When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is the father of lies.” -John 8:44

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” -Romans 8:7-8

“Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” -2 Corinthians 3:17

“And that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” -2 Timothy 2:26

“We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.” -1 John 5:19

 

[Drotar]

Article IV: Total Inability


I decided to split the doctrine of total depravity into two parts- the first relating to human nature and our moral obligation, the other, relating to our salvation. One reason I did this was because oftentimes in discussions with apologists that oppose these doctrines, we will get caught up debating common grace, and I may forget to stress the more important aspect of total depravity altogether. As theologians, we may find ourselves discussing the very least important aspect of total depravity, and missing its soteriological importance altogether. Really, the two areas that people oppose most concerning Calvinism are total depravity and limited atonement. How sad it is that these two are the least important additions to Reformed soteriology, and merely serve the purpose of muddying up the waters between Christians. This first point was truly interesting and intellectually stimulating. But this next point is foundational to understanding our salvation. Having these two separated into distinct articles makes organizing our apologetic priorities several times simpler. In addition, this also means there is twice as much Scriptural support in defense of the doctrine.

Our incapability to adhere to our obligation affects not only our relation to the law, but our relation to the Lawgiver as well. If man is inherently corrupt, malignant, and wicked as shown undeniably within the Scriptures, how then can man under slavery to sin choose the perfect, omni-benevolent, and holy deity? Man cannot choose good, and thus, man certainly lacks the ability to choose God. It is simply not an outworking of out nature. The concept that man will not and cannot convert unless God first convicts and draws the person in is not too difficult for the average Bible-reading Christian to embrace. Total inability is the doctrine teaching that man cannot repent and turn to God unless God first calls, regenerates, and convicts. Its implication is that God is the initiator of salvation, the “Author” of our faith. It is very closely linked with an article we’ll go over in another chapter titled Irresistible Grace. Unless God makes that first vital step towards man, then men will ultimately die in his sins, unrepentant. To put it bluntly, unless convicted or unless our nature is regenerated, how can man repent of that which he loves? How can men truly repent of sin, if that is what he desires and loves? The nature itself must be changed before repentance.

Total inability is often associated with Reformed, Presbyterian, or Evangelical fundamentalists, but really it is accepted by most Christians, as odd as it seems. Educated Catholics, as well as Protestants both acknowledge man’s inability to come to God unless He offers His grace. A large majority of Christians in general believe that God makes the initial step in salvation by offering His grace. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott unmistakably preaches total inability (229). James Akin, Catholic author of The Salvation Controversy, points to that very same passage in Ott’s book on the topic of total inability, and likewise, confirms the Catholic position in the acceptance of this doctrine (75). Every Christian denomination I know of believe that God is responsible for convicting men’s hearts and must make that initial step of “watering the seeds” in men’s hearts. The objections I have seen against these doctrine deals all deal with our depravity and not our inability. The biggest Scriptural testimony of total depravity is found within the Pauline letters. The unregenerate are called “dead” and “blind” repeatedly throughout his epistlic correspondences, truly describing the spiritual state of men prior to God’s regeneration. Men must be given sight and be morally convicted before embracing Jesus. His ways are foolishness, we don’t understand His message, and we simply don’t feel a need for Him until He changes our nature necessarily. A man that is dead possesses as much ability raising himself from the dead physically as he does spiritually. It is the Holy Spirit that must start the work of salvation in our hearts. The important thing that you need to remember about total depravity is that unless God moves and changes a man’s heart, he will reject Christ and ultimately perish under God’s just condemnation. Regeneration does not result from man choosing Christ, but rather man chooses Christ as a result of his sinful nature being broken. Unless God makes the first move, men cannot, and will not convert.

Scriptural Support

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” -John 6:44

“Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.” -John 12:34-40

“The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him for He dwells with you and will be in you.” -John 14:17

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit....” -John 15:16

“There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” -Romans 3:11

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” -1 Corinthians 2:14

“There I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” -1 Corinthians 12:3

“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospels of the glory of Christ, who is in the image of God, should shine in them.” -2 Corinthians 4:3-4

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” -2 Corinthians 5:17

 

[Drotar]

Hey, sorry that it's clumped together. I've been typing that in Works in XP, and it didn't paste correctly.

let me fix it...


There, I edited my posts.

And no wonder I remembered that aspect of Akin's writings- I quoted him at the end of that chapter! Talk about irony that you would post it too!

TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Drotar;
I appreciate your information however you haven't shown how man is responsible for his sins if he can't respond. If we have no choice explain this verse;

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[Drotar]

Hi Drotar;
I appreciate your information however you haven't shown how man is responsible for his sins if he can't respond. If we have no choice explain this verse;

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

In Christ;
Romanbear

I addressed that. Though not that verse directly, I addressed verses saying that.

I beg your pardon if I am not feeling up to repeating myself. I also don't blame you for not reading that. It's quite extensive, but I guarantee that all your objections are answered.

How? I was an Arminian too once, dont'cha know. And I fought to defend it about as hard as I fight to defend Calvinism. But man, may NO verse of Scripture be ignored. Because the Bible is all I've got. It's my life. Without it, I'm NOTHING, NOTHING. I can't ignore a single verse, and unless I can reconcile all of those verses I posted, much like has been done with Arminianism, then I will either accept the Bible, or just give up my faith. The Scriptures are the air I breathe. I want to emphasize that. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Yukerboy]

"how man is responsible for his sins if he can't respond. If we have no choice explain this verse;"

Romans 9:19-21

Yuke

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Yukerboy;
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Exactly my point.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The one thing that bothers me most about Calvinism is that it says that only certain ones will be saved. You see in the second verse. The Lord is not willing that any should perish. When hearing the gospel we are all drawn by God. Some resist some answer but no one is saved before they have faith. We are saved by Grace, but it's through faith and faith comes by hearing the word of God....
These verses you have suggested about the clay and the potter seem to contradict Peters statement about the Lords will.How ever it doesn't really in romans 9:19-21 How they objected to him and if you think about it how they were dashed to pieces because of there objections.
This below from Jamsison Fausset and Brown comentary.
Rom 9:19 - Thou shalt say then unto me, Why--"Why then" is the true reading.
doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted--"Who resisteth"
his will?--that is, "This doctrine is incompatible with human responsibility"; If God chooses and rejects, pardons and punishes, whom He pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by Him, cannot help sinning and perishing? This objection shows quite as conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to--that it is Election and Non-election to eternal salvation prior to any difference of personal character; this is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated, and to this doctrine the objection is plausible. What now is the apostle's answer? It is twofold. First: "It is irreverence and presumption in the creature to arraign the Creator."
Paul explains what he's talking about;
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because theysoughtit not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Is Romans 9 a stumbling block for you?
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

Yuker, you might want to point out to romanbear that he is ripping 2 Peter 3:9 completely out of its context. I would (and have previously at great length) but I'm being 'ignored' now.

Good luck!

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Yukerboy;
I wonder does your pin name have any particular meaning.

2Peter3:9 just blows some people away but don't let it bother you check it out your self. You'll see that truth is truth no matter what others say.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

Yuke, I've addressed 2 Peter 3:9 on previous threads. Here is my most recent response to RB regarding this passage:

In its context this section follows strong words against false teachers in Chapter 2. Entering Chapter 3 Peter reminds them of what he covered largely in his first epistle, the promise and security of salvation and the trust and obedience of the saints. He warns them that scoffers will come in the last days sarcastically saying 'where is your Christ that's supposed to come? all this evil is around as it has always been and he hasn't come in judgement to wipe it all out!' Peter reminds them that just as the world was created and brought forth by the word, and by the word was judged in the flood wiping out mankind, so the word now preserves the present world, reserving it for the final judgement. Peter then reminds them that God is not bound by time...a thousand years with Him is as a day and vice versa. He is not slack concerning His promise. What promise? The promise that He will one day come in righteous judgement and bring an end to all unrighteousness. So why has it not happened yet? Because He is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us] should perish but that all [of us] should come to repentance.

Obviously salvation is in view here. Let's take a closer look at the possible interpretations of the verse. I think both sides must agree that 'any' and 'all' refer back to the 'us' in the verse. The point of contention is whether 'us' is mankind (of which Peter and his audience are both members) or the elect (of which Peter and all true believers are members).

First, if we take the Arminian position and assume that the 'any' and 'all' refer to every individual person, then we have God reserving His judgement to give every person opportunity to come to repentance. The question must be asked then, at what point does He say "enough" and end it. What's the cutoff? What about those who were never given the chance? Or does Judgement really never come so long as men are being born? This interpretation seems to leave a number of questions unanswered.

Now let's look at it from a Calvinist point of view and assume that 'any' and 'all' refer to the elect. Since Peter speaks to them in contrast to false teachers, scoffers, etc. it can be reasonable to assume that those he is addressing, the recipients of the promise, are the saints...the believers. Looking at it in light of election we have Him being lonsuffering toward us [the elect], not willing that any [of the elect] should perish, but that all [of the elect] should come to repentance.

The objection has been raised...'if the elect are necessarily going to be saved anyway, then why does he even need to say this?' Again, look at the context. The scoffers have implied that the delay in His return means He's not really coming. Peter's purpose in 3:8-9 is to reassure his audience that there is nothing to fear. He is not slack, but rather patient and operating according to His own timetable. Furthermore, if He were to respond to the scoffers by showing up 'ahead of schedule' there is a big problem. The full number of the Gentiles will not have been reached. While election before the foundation of the world is UNTO salvation, it is not in and of itself the CAUSE of salvation. Election is a decree. Salvation is the carrying out of that decree. If He were to come prematurely, there would be men who were elect but that had not yet come to repentance and salvation. In essence, God would be abandoning the elect! And thus we have Peter's words...He is longsuffering towards the elect. He will not abandon them. He WILL bring each and every last one of His elect to salvation.

Contrary to what was put forth, I do not see the use of the term 'beloved' as implying that all who read the letter are saved. I believe it shows who Peter INTENDS the audience to be. Let me post an excerpt from a commentary:

"Peter’s Christian readers must realize that the apparent delay of divine judgment is a sign of God’s forbearance and mercy toward them, particularly toward the believers in their midst who have been confused and misled by the false teachers. Note that the scope of “all” is qualified by the word “us.” The repentance in view, for the sake of which God delays judgment, is that of God’s people rather than the world at large. God is not willing that any of His elect should perish (John 6:39)."

New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (2 Pe 3:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

If you're interested to see the types of responses received, you can check out [post=814930]the original post[/post] in its context. You be the judge on whether or not I was 'blown away.'

*edited to be addressed directly to Yukerboy

 

[straightforward]

OK...so I'm still wondering if the Calvinists are pinning me with a bad rap by calling me an Armenian (Because I do believe in total deprivaty...I don't think we come into this world innocent) but at the same time I see that God does reach people through His word, through His creation, and through Jesus who died on the cross for me...wouldn't any of those count as God starting the whole salvation process? and then our responding? I still do not see how no one has a chance at redemption but a choice few when His influence is all around and I see people everyday accept it or reject it. I suppose this all goes back to the idea that we cannot reject God if He asks us to join the club...but then why has he gone to such great trouble to put Himself so much into peoples lives? Even Ninevah got a chance. I am not in any way saying that we can somehow choose how God will enter our lives...but He does in His own way and His own time. I look back and see how many times I turned away from Him and ignored Him...but He knew I would reach the day I did when I would wake up and He did not let me go. This is a loving Father. I think people every day pass Him by...and they will be the ones who ask, "When did I ever see you there"? But in their hearts they know they saw Him and ran the other way to choose this world over Him. No...I would not say that I am an Armenian and not a Calvanist either...I guess I'm right where God has brought me to so far...and that seems fair to me.

 

[Drotar]

Straightforward, the reason why is because if God went only to preach the gospel to the elect, then the others would be with excuse.

Rather, the EXTERNAL calling is delivered to alll, but the internal calling is God's regeneration. Being Arminian, or at least semi-Arminian in thought, is often a "bad rap" because it affects your view of God and His ability to do what He wills, and even your view of the Trinity.

Straightforward, the most we can do is to ask you to give us a chance. I did. It changed my life. Above is my defense of total depravity. If THAT doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. TTYL Jesu sloves you!

 

[straightforward]

Straightforward, the reason why is because if God went only to preach the gospel to the elect, then the others would be with excuse.

Yes, I would agree that makes sense...but then if the 'non elect' have heard and are without excuse wouldn't that mean that they have also been given a choice? My kids don't hand me excuses unless they already knew the rules and unless I'm asking them why they broke them. If God has already destined these people to hell why would He even ask them? I agree, they will have no excuse because God is there for them to see but they choose to ignore Him.

Rather, the EXTERNAL calling is delivered to alll, but the internal calling is God's regeneration. Being Arminian, or at least semi-Arminian in thought, is often a "bad rap" because it affects your view of God and His ability to do what He wills, and even your view of the Trinity.

Ok, this I have not heard before (external and internal callings) but I do believe that both are from God. And there in lies the rub with being called an Armenian. I would have to say that I think all do hear the external call...but those who would choose to ignore that will be eventually handed over to their sin (their choice) and because of the hardness of their heart will probably not ever hear the internal call. This makes sense to me. But, again, I have never heard it put that way by a Calvanist or an Armenian.

Straightforward, the most we can do is to ask you to give us a chance. I did. It changed my life. Above is my defense of total depravity. If THAT doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. TTYL Jesu sloves you!

Oh...I most definatly am giving Calvanism a chance. I do believe that the true Armenian view is incorrect...I do believe in total depravity...we are most definatly born with a sin nature. But I also believe that we all have at least the opportunity to hear at least the external call and be redeemed by God from the curse. We cannot serve two masters and there fore a choice is involved. A choice most definatly given by God and thus He is still in control...I believe this would be the difference between 'ordained' and 'commanded'...just as He was in control in the garden but He still left it to Adam and Eve to make their choice and He knew what would happen. The only difference between Adam and Eve and their choice and mankind now and our choice would be that Adam and Eve chose to go against God even without an inherent sin nature. Am I correct in thinking that even the Calvanist view allowes for a choice to be made in the garden? Or was that something that Adam and Eve did because God made them? Either way God is still supreme and on the throne...so why would a belief in the same God and the same freedom given to A&E in the garden be wrong today?