What is the meaning of Total Depravity?

[Clare73]

The Koine Greek for the word “slave” is “doulos.” A Lexicon illuminates both Biblical and non-Biblical use of the Koine Greek word was literal and metaphorical.

So, Jesus wasn’t necessarily using the word “doulos” or “slave” literally. Equally ambiguous is your assumption Jesus did use the word “doulos”/“slave” to mean and express a forcing, coercing, making them/everyone to sin/commit sin.

The text of the verse itself provides no support for your assumption Jesus was expressing a coercion, a forcing, people to sin. There’s nothing inherent or of necessity in the verses for coercion, a forcing to commit to sin as Jesus’ point or message.

You also assume a literal use of the word “slave” but you’ve not supported your assumption with any evidence this is used literally by Jesus.

A metaphorical use of the word “doulos” is just as applicable in these verses and as compatible and congruous with the text of the verse and surrounding verses.

You’ve forced your interpretation upon the verse, the Greek and text.

Hence, John 8:34 doesn’t necessarily negate free will.

The strongest reading and interpretation is likely John 8:34 simply doesn’t ineluctably settle the issue of free will or determinism theologically from a Biblical approach. John 8:34 doesn’t clearly announce a determinism to the exclusion of free will. Nethier does John 8:34 announce a free will to the exclusion of determinism.

Simply, John didn’t at all illuminate the mechanism for “habitual sin” (the Koine Greek is “habitual sin(s)l which renders a “slave to sin.” John was only stating thst however “habitual sin” occurs or manifests in a person’s life makes them a “slave to sin.”

It is worth noting and observing a free will to habitual sin, where free will is the person has the ability and power to perfom the sinful acr(s) or refrain from doing so, they are not coerced to sin, forced to sin, is compatible with the text of the verse and Koine Greek used.

Regardless. John 8:34 isn’t a declaration for or against free will/determinism.



“Unfettered/free will”? Whose position are you addressing? Mara didn’t use the qualifier “unfettered.”

Seems you are debating someone else from a prior encounter and not Mara presently in this thread.

Free will is the ability to perform an act or refrain from performing some act without being forced, coerced, by some being, force, cause. It is in the person’s power to perform the act or refrain from performing the act.

I’m unaware of any sagacious, astute, proponent of free will that claims “unfettered.” Simply because, there are many factors, variables, influences to one’s ability to perform an act in their power to perform it or refrain from it.

If you want to address someone else’s or some other notion of “unfettered free will,” then fine but dispense with the idea you’ve actually addressed “free will” as others here have used the phrase, especially myself.

And your question “is the wrong question,” as you phrased it to another poster. People can be “able to make all moral choices” but they will always use their ability to at least least one occasion choose to perform a sinful act.



Not at all. The notion of free will preceded Pelagius by several centuries, was in existence during OT Judaism (before the NT), and Pelagius’ view of free will was more nuanced than you presented here.

In addition, there are verses where “free will” is inherent or implied in Scripture.

I"m sure you'll understand if I believe Jesus in Jn 8:34; i.e., man is a slave to sin. . .slaves to sin are not morally free.

 

[fhansen]

I"m sure you'll understand if I believe Jesus in Jn 8:34; i.e., man is a slave to sin. . .slaves to sin are not morally free.

And yet Rom 6, and all of Romans for that matter, presents our captivity itself, who and what we'll be a slave to, as a choice, an ongoing one.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!" Rom 6:19-21

 

[Clare73]

And yet Rom 6, and all of Romans for that matter, presents our captivity itself, who and what we'll be a slave to, as a choice, an ongoing one.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!" Rom 6:19-21

"Free will" is a human notion. . .Scripture does not present the totally "free will" of man (Jn 8:34).

Totally "free will" is not about being able to make choices, its about being able to make all moral choices.

Man's will is not totally free if it cannot make the moral choice to live sinlessly.

 

[fhansen]

"Free will" is a human notion. . .Scripture does not present the totally "free will" of man (Jn 8:34).

No, free will is a notion of God- for man-otherwise sin, opposition to God's will, would be impossible to begin with and moral accountabilty would be a fallacy- and we already know that's not true which is why we hold people acountable in civil matters. They could've done other than the wrong they did; we know basic right from wrong. But we're here to learn, by revelation and grace, that the ultimate wrong, the injustice which we're ultimately and most importantly accountable for, is that injustice where man fails to have faith in God, demanding a justice/righteousness without which the world, with man at the helm, remains a place of sin, victimization, war, conflict, division, and then ending only in death. And that's why faith pleases God immensely, because we could do otherwise; we could fail to embrace that gift of faith that restores justice to ourselves, and by extension, to God's creation.

Man isn't totally free, with the perfect freedom that God posesses, but neither is he totally depraved; he's sufficiently free. God informs and calls and prompts him to answer, but won't totally override man's will at the end of the day. And that, and only that, is what makes hell, the choice to live apart from God and the love that consitutes and guarantees justice/righteousness, a matter of justice itself.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

choosing life, we still must participate, we must choose at the end of the day. And continue to do so throughout our lives.

Your position just makes grace into classic legalism

A typical thou shalt not, or else set up

There is no escape from the guilty verdict no matter how much whitewash is applied

At the end of the day, everyone will have been determined to be sinners, no exceptions.

Moral choosers will not be standing on the winners platform because no such choosers will ever be sinless

A platform for hypocrites would be more appropriate for such, and in line with truth

And a special platform for liars

Now, how many freewillers want to choose honesty? I'd suggest there's not too many takers

Yeah buts abound

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Man's will is not totally free if it cannot make the moral choice to live sinlessly.

Indeed

No one other than God Himself has ever made a perfect choice

There is only one honest freewill choice, and that is to see and choose to speak honestly of the fact that we are all guilty sinners at all times, period.

Freewill moral choosers always choke on that fact

No one, no not one will stand self justified in the face of God. They may provide a good chuckle at their best

 

[fhansen]

Your position just makes grace into classic legalism

A typical thou shalt not, or else set up

There is no escape from the guilty verdict no matter how much whitewash is applied

At the end of the day, everyone will have been determined to be sinners, no exceptions.

Moral choosers will not be standing on the winners platform because no such choosers will ever be sinless

A platform for hypocrites would be more appropriate for such, and in line with truth

And a special platform for liars

Now, how many freewillers want to choose honesty? I'd suggest there's not too many takers

Yeah buts abound

Oh, so God created everyone to be sinners. Wow, what a god. Jesus came to heal the sick, but He can't do it. Anyone who does God's will, with the help of His medicine His grace, by the Spirit, is a hypocrite.

 

[Clare73]

No, free will is a notion of God- for man-otherwise sin, opposition to God's will, would be impossible to begin with and moral accountabilty would be a fallacy-

Nope. . .that's human rationalization superceding divine revelation.
Feel free to present the Scripture specifically stating the "free will" of man.

I present the Scritpure that contradicts that notion: "He who sins is a slave to sin." (Jn 8:34) Slaves are not free.

Man is morally accountable, even though he is not free/able to live sinlessly.

Not to mention that in divine revelation man is guilty of Adam's sin imputed to him by God (Ro 5:17, 12-14), and which imputation is
the pattern (Ro 5:14) for man's righteousness by Christ's righteousness imputed to him by God (Php 3:9, Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Clare73]

Oh, so God created everyone to be sinners. Wow, what a god.

Are you unaware that we are born sinners, born with the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, Php 3:9)?

 

[fhansen]

Are you unaware that we are born sinners, born with the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, Php 3:9)?

Yes, born sinners, not just imputed to be sinners. And by that pattern believers aren't just imputed to be rightoues but actually made righteous. But even as we're lost and cannot find God apart from His grace, from Him loving and finding us first, He still works to draw us into rectitude, not to simply overwhelm us, or overwhelm some and not others, etc.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, born sinners, not just imputed to be sinners.

We are both, born sinners, by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3), as well as imputed sinners with Adam's sin (Ro 5:17).

 

[fhansen]

We are both, born sinners, by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3), as well as imputed sinners with Adam's sin (Ro 5:17).

Excdpt that it doesn't say anything about sin being imputed. Vs 19 explains that, through Adam, the many were made sinners, and, by Jesus, the many are made righteous. So, yes, we're born as actual sinners.

 

[Clare73]

Excdpt that it doesn't say anything about sin being imputed.

OK. . .

1) Because of his faith, Abraham was made righteous by imputation (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:1-5).
that is the source of the doctrine of imputation of both righteousness (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:1-5) and sin (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

2) "Just as the result on one trespass was condemnation for all men,
so also, the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." (Ro 5:18)

How did Adam's trespass (sin) bring condemnation to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17)?
The same way Christ's righteousness brought life to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18), by imputation.

3) Just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Ro 5:19)

How did Adam's disobedience (sin) make the many to be sinners (Ro 5:19)?
The same way Christ's righteousness made the many to be righteous (Ro 5:19), by imputation,

a) Do you understand what "through the trespass of one man, death reigned (over all mankind) through that one man" (Ro 5:17) means?

b) Do you understand what "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command ("committing transgression," Ro 5:14) means?

They are referring to imputation of Adam's sin, as distinct from personal incurrence of sin.

Vs 19 explains that, through Adam, the many were made sinners, and, by Jesus, the many are made righteous. So, yes, we're born as actual sinners.

We were made sinners by imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 18-19), as well as by our own incurrence of sin.

We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are born with our nature.

 

[fhansen]

1) Because of his faith, Abraham was made righteous by imputation (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:1-5).

Abraham was declared or counted as righteous because of his faith, faith being the first true step of righteousness a man can make.

 

[fhansen]

2) "Just as the result on one trespass was condemnation for all men,
so also, the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." (Ro 5:18)

How did Adam's trespass (sin) bring condemnation to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17)?
The same way Christ's righteousness brought life to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18), by imputation.

3) Just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Ro 5:19)

How did Adam's disobedience (sin) make the many to be sinners (Ro 5:19)?
The same way Christ's righteousness made the many to be righteous (Ro 5:19), by imputation,

a) Do you understand what "through the trespass of one man, death reigned (over all mankind) through that one man" (Ro 5:17) means?

b) Do you understand what "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command ("committing transgression," Ro 5:14) means?

They are referring to imputation of Adam's sin, as distinct from personal incurrence of sin.
We were made sinners by imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 18-19), as well as by our own incurrence of sin.

We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are born with our nature.

Ok, if by "imputation' you mean that, in some manner, Adam's descendants became really and truly unrighteous, sinful, due to Adam's sin, and that Jesus' spiritual descendants become really and truly righteous by Jesus' act of righteousness, then you're understanding Rom 5.

 

[Clare73]

Abraham was declared or counted as righteous because of his faith, faith being the first true step of righteousness a man can make.

Yes, "declared or counted as" is imputation (Ro 4:1-5, 5:13).

 

[fhansen]

Yes, "declared or counted as" is imputation (Ro 4:1-5, 5:13).

Ok, so God was pleased by his faith and so Abraham was recognized as righteous.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, so God was pleased by his faith and so Abraham was recognized as righteous.

Are you serious? . . .

Imputation (ellogao) of Ro 4:1-5 is not a "recognition," it is an accounting to, a crediting to, a reckoning to. . .in this case of "righteousness,"
just as Adam's sin is likewise accounted to, credited to, reckoned to (imputed to) mankind (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

 

[fhansen]

Imputation (ellogao) of Ro 4:1-5 is not a "recognition," it is an accounting to, a crediting to, a reckoning to. . .in this case of "righteousness,"
just as Adam's sin is likewise accounted to, credited to, reckoned to (imputed to) mankind (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

Are you serious? Abraham was credited, counted, declared, reckoned righteous because he did the most basic act of righteousness a man can make before God. He turned to and acknowledged and obeyed Him as God.

 

[Clare73]

Are you serious? Abraham was credited, counted, declared, reckoned righteous because he did the most basic act of righteousness a man can make before God. He turned to and acknowledged and obeyed Him as God.

My text states that "he believed God and it (his belief/faith) was credited (imputed) to him as righteousness." (Ro 4:1-5. 22, 2 Co 5:21, Php 3:9).

The word ellogao (impute) does not mean "declared."