The doctrine of Total Depravity, according to Classical Arminian usage of the term, states that, though all of "the constituent parts of personhood remain intact after the Fall" (cf. Gen. 3:20-21), total depravity is "not absolute depravity," in that not everyone is as bad or evil as he could be, yet "every aspect of one's being is conditioned by sinful inclinations."1 Arminian scholar F. Leroy Forlines continues, "In summary, total means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man's nature, to his entire being; and depravity means that, because of that corruption, there is nothing man can do to merit saving favor with God."2
The concept of Total Inability is merely the corollary of the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. In other words, because man is totally depraved in all aspects of his entire being, this state renders him completely unable, as Arminius and the Remonstrants confess, rightly "to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things."3 If the doctrine of Total Depravity is accurate, then the conception of Total Inability is a necessary consequence. Incidentally, Calvinist R. C. Sproul, Sr., concludes that the "language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius"4 with regard to Arminius's doctrine of Total Depravity.
These conclusions were not derived out of thin air. There are biblical reasons why Classical Arminians and Calvinists hold the doctrine of Total Depravity and its corollary Total Inability. Let us look at some texts of Scripture to see if there is warrant for the doctrine, beginning with the fall of man.
"From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:16-17 NASB, and henceforth); "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen. 3:6). That day Adam and Eve died; but what do we mean by died, and what did God mean that in the day they eat from it they shall surely die?
The Hebrew word muwth is a primitive root which means to die, whether literally or figuratively. The word can refer to a "natural" death "in peace at an old age, as in the case of Abraham (Gen. 25:8; Judges 8:32),"5 even though dying is not natural; death is very unnatural. Moreover, death is considered an enemy (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26). Death came about, if you will, "through unbelief and rebellion against God (Gen. 3:4) so that Adam and Eve died. The word describes dying because of failure to pursue a moral life (Prov. 5:23; 10:21)."6
Their disobedience -- and ours in them -- brought physical death into God's creation (cf. Rom. 8:19-22), as well as spiritual death. The apostle Paul partly states, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21). Every sinner is "in Adam" before he is ever "in Christ" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22), and hence he is a sinner before he is ever saved from his sins.
As sin entered the world, it effected creation (as seen in entropy) as well as the hearts of men (as seen in depravity). The prophet Isaiah writes, "Behold, the LORD's hand is not so short that it cannot save; neither is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear" (Isa. 59:1-2). Sin created a separation between God and the creatures whom He created in His image -- a separation which could never be spanned by man's efforts, because he lost his original righteousness and has been rendered helpless in mending the separation. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6, emphasis added). "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, emphasis added).
Not only are we, in a fallen state, helpless in doing anything positive about it, but we are rightly judged as sinners. If we are take sin and the fact that we are sinners -- those who commit sin -- seriously, then we are, in my opinion, obligated to believe and to teach the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. "For sin is that condition and activity of human beings that is offensive to God, their Creator."7 All unregenerate sinners are in a state of sin and unbelief and thus exist as unholy offenders in an environment of condemnation under the wrath of God (cf. John 3:18, 36).
The state of sin in which the unregenerate sinner exists renders him unable to subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). "For this reason," explains Arminius, "the human heart itself is very often called deceitful and perverse, uncircumcised, hard and stony (Jer. 13:10; 17:9; Ezekiel 36:26): Its . . . imagination is said to be 'only evil from his very youth' (Gen. 6:5; 8:21); and 'out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,' &c. (Matt. 15:19)."8 Let us focus on two passages from which Arminius quotes.
Moses writes, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" (Gen. 6:5-6). Note the depravity inherent in fallen man just prior to the Flood: every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually; not some intents of the thoughts of his heart were partially evil on occasion. No, the situation is much, much worse.
Even after the Flood, the LORD said, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). Again, the situation with regard to man's sinful condition is dire: the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth. Our wicked, evil hearts have a bent toward not righteousness but sin! This wretched condition has crippled us spiritually. The unregenerate man "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor. 2:14, emphasis added). Even our understanding of spiritual issues has been rendered helpless; hence the corollary Total Inability.
The prophet Jeremiah rhetorically asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil" (Jer. 13:23). In effect, God insists that if the Ethiopian is inherently capable of changing the color of his skin, and also the leopard his spots, then sinful wicked people who are accustomed to doing evil can also do good in and of themselves. But that is far from reality. We cannot change the color of our skin nor our (sinful) spots. Arminian scholar Robert E. Picirilli writes:
The apostle Paul states, "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (Rom. 2:4 ESV, emphasis added) If we did not need leading, then the contrary would not be thus stated in Scripture. Paul writes elsewhere, "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29 NASB, emphasis added). If we did not need to be granted belief in Jesus, then the contrary would not be thus stated in Scripture.
In summary, if we were not totally depraved and totally unable to come to and believe in Christ, scriptural statements quoted in this brief post would not only be gratuitous but actually inaccurate. Even Paul's use of the Midrash at Romans 3:10-18 is telling: Though each one of us has not committed every sin listed in the corpus of that passage (Rom. 3:10-18), our evil and fallen nature holds the seedbed for every despicable act imaginable. A bad tree is incapable in and of itself of producing good fruit (cf. Matt. 7:18). Hence Total Depravity and Total Inability.
Left to ourselves, we would never come to and believe in Christ. In our sins we are "dead" (Eph. 2:1), i.e., separated from a right relationship with and from the spiritual life of our Creator. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with [or, in] Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).
__________
1 F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2011), 16-17.
2 Ibid., 17.
3 James Arminius, "Disputation XI. On the Free Will of Man and its Powers," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, the London edition, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:191. See also The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans. and ed. Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2005), 63-69.
4 R. C. Sproul, Sr., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 126. For example, Arminius states: "In this [fallen] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and . . . weakened; but it is also . . . imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. . . . The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. . . . To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil. . . . Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is . . . the utter Weakness of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause. . . ." (Works 2:192-93, emphases author's original).
5 "AMG's Annotated Strong's Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament," taken from The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, in the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: Key Insights into God's Word: NASB, eds. Spiros Zodhiates, Warren Baker, and Joel Kletzing (Chattanooga: AMG International, 2008), 1920.
6 Ibid.
7 The New International Dictionary of the Bible: Pictorial Edition, eds. J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 946.
8 Arminius, Works, 2:193.
9 Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 149.
The concept of Total Inability is merely the corollary of the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. In other words, because man is totally depraved in all aspects of his entire being, this state renders him completely unable, as Arminius and the Remonstrants confess, rightly "to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things."3 If the doctrine of Total Depravity is accurate, then the conception of Total Inability is a necessary consequence. Incidentally, Calvinist R. C. Sproul, Sr., concludes that the "language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius"4 with regard to Arminius's doctrine of Total Depravity.
These conclusions were not derived out of thin air. There are biblical reasons why Classical Arminians and Calvinists hold the doctrine of Total Depravity and its corollary Total Inability. Let us look at some texts of Scripture to see if there is warrant for the doctrine, beginning with the fall of man.
"From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:16-17 NASB, and henceforth); "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen. 3:6). That day Adam and Eve died; but what do we mean by died, and what did God mean that in the day they eat from it they shall surely die?
The Hebrew word muwth is a primitive root which means to die, whether literally or figuratively. The word can refer to a "natural" death "in peace at an old age, as in the case of Abraham (Gen. 25:8; Judges 8:32),"5 even though dying is not natural; death is very unnatural. Moreover, death is considered an enemy (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26). Death came about, if you will, "through unbelief and rebellion against God (Gen. 3:4) so that Adam and Eve died. The word describes dying because of failure to pursue a moral life (Prov. 5:23; 10:21)."6
Their disobedience -- and ours in them -- brought physical death into God's creation (cf. Rom. 8:19-22), as well as spiritual death. The apostle Paul partly states, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21). Every sinner is "in Adam" before he is ever "in Christ" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22), and hence he is a sinner before he is ever saved from his sins.
As sin entered the world, it effected creation (as seen in entropy) as well as the hearts of men (as seen in depravity). The prophet Isaiah writes, "Behold, the LORD's hand is not so short that it cannot save; neither is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear" (Isa. 59:1-2). Sin created a separation between God and the creatures whom He created in His image -- a separation which could never be spanned by man's efforts, because he lost his original righteousness and has been rendered helpless in mending the separation. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6, emphasis added). "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, emphasis added).
Not only are we, in a fallen state, helpless in doing anything positive about it, but we are rightly judged as sinners. If we are take sin and the fact that we are sinners -- those who commit sin -- seriously, then we are, in my opinion, obligated to believe and to teach the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. "For sin is that condition and activity of human beings that is offensive to God, their Creator."7 All unregenerate sinners are in a state of sin and unbelief and thus exist as unholy offenders in an environment of condemnation under the wrath of God (cf. John 3:18, 36).
The state of sin in which the unregenerate sinner exists renders him unable to subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). "For this reason," explains Arminius, "the human heart itself is very often called deceitful and perverse, uncircumcised, hard and stony (Jer. 13:10; 17:9; Ezekiel 36:26): Its . . . imagination is said to be 'only evil from his very youth' (Gen. 6:5; 8:21); and 'out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,' &c. (Matt. 15:19)."8 Let us focus on two passages from which Arminius quotes.
Moses writes, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" (Gen. 6:5-6). Note the depravity inherent in fallen man just prior to the Flood: every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually; not some intents of the thoughts of his heart were partially evil on occasion. No, the situation is much, much worse.
Even after the Flood, the LORD said, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). Again, the situation with regard to man's sinful condition is dire: the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth. Our wicked, evil hearts have a bent toward not righteousness but sin! This wretched condition has crippled us spiritually. The unregenerate man "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor. 2:14, emphasis added). Even our understanding of spiritual issues has been rendered helpless; hence the corollary Total Inability.
The prophet Jeremiah rhetorically asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil" (Jer. 13:23). In effect, God insists that if the Ethiopian is inherently capable of changing the color of his skin, and also the leopard his spots, then sinful wicked people who are accustomed to doing evil can also do good in and of themselves. But that is far from reality. We cannot change the color of our skin nor our (sinful) spots. Arminian scholar Robert E. Picirilli writes:
This condition may rightly be called total depravity, in that it pervades every aspect of man's being, and total inability, in that it leaves him helpless to perform anything truly good in God's sight. As Watson expresses this: "The true Arminian, as fully as the Calvinist, admits the doctrine of the total depravity of human nature in consequence of the fall of our first parents."9Indeed, the authors of Scripture, from Jesus to the apostle Paul, continue this theme of both depravity and its corollary inability. Jesus, for example, twice states, "No one can [denoting inability, not permission] come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44, emphasis added); "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can [denoting inability, not permission] come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65, emphasis added). If we have the inherent ability to come to and believe in Jesus, then the contrary would not be stated thus in Scripture (see my Interpreting John 6:26-45: Coming to Christ).
The apostle Paul states, "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (Rom. 2:4 ESV, emphasis added) If we did not need leading, then the contrary would not be thus stated in Scripture. Paul writes elsewhere, "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29 NASB, emphasis added). If we did not need to be granted belief in Jesus, then the contrary would not be thus stated in Scripture.
In summary, if we were not totally depraved and totally unable to come to and believe in Christ, scriptural statements quoted in this brief post would not only be gratuitous but actually inaccurate. Even Paul's use of the Midrash at Romans 3:10-18 is telling: Though each one of us has not committed every sin listed in the corpus of that passage (Rom. 3:10-18), our evil and fallen nature holds the seedbed for every despicable act imaginable. A bad tree is incapable in and of itself of producing good fruit (cf. Matt. 7:18). Hence Total Depravity and Total Inability.
Left to ourselves, we would never come to and believe in Christ. In our sins we are "dead" (Eph. 2:1), i.e., separated from a right relationship with and from the spiritual life of our Creator. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with [or, in] Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).
__________
1 F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2011), 16-17.
2 Ibid., 17.
3 James Arminius, "Disputation XI. On the Free Will of Man and its Powers," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, the London edition, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:191. See also The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans. and ed. Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2005), 63-69.
4 R. C. Sproul, Sr., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 126. For example, Arminius states: "In this [fallen] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and . . . weakened; but it is also . . . imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. . . . The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. . . . To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil. . . . Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is . . . the utter Weakness of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause. . . ." (Works 2:192-93, emphases author's original).
5 "AMG's Annotated Strong's Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament," taken from The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, in the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: Key Insights into God's Word: NASB, eds. Spiros Zodhiates, Warren Baker, and Joel Kletzing (Chattanooga: AMG International, 2008), 1920.
6 Ibid.
7 The New International Dictionary of the Bible: Pictorial Edition, eds. J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 946.
8 Arminius, Works, 2:193.
9 Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 149.
I subscribe to total inability of a sinner to understand the gospel and believe without the aid and leading of God's Spirit. I also believ lost sinners are completely fallen without one residue of righteousness.
ReplyDeleteHowever, where I disagree with Calvin is that I believe the Scriptures teach a sinner can seek. If they cannot, then irresistable grace must be true.
Sinners can seek under the influence of grace. God must seek them first.
ReplyDeleteDT
DT,
ReplyDeleteI was going to write the same thing. "No one seeks for God" (Rom. 3:11). I think the Spirit does that work first, and then people seek the LORD, for without faith "it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek [i.e., seek and continue to seek] Him" (Heb. 11:6).
If there is any capacity for a sinner to seek it would have to fall under the presupposition of God bidding him to do so (e.g. Jeremiah 29:12ff).
ReplyDeleteAnd I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
ReplyDeleteThat is a given, which by the way, is counter to uncondtional election unless you mangle the word "all" or God is a sadist.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
ReplyDeleteThat is a given, which by the way, is counter to uncondtional election unless you mangle the word "all" or God is a sadist.
Yep--here is just one of the many places where certain folks have to distort/mangle the meaning of the word "all" to promote their doctrinal agenda.
DT
William,
ReplyDeleteAs we have already discussed, I have a real problem with TD because I believe you to be correct that TI is the obvious extension of TD. This by necessity requires some sort of prevenient grace, whether it makes repentance possible or irresistable. This whole proposition to me is inacceptable.
I love the statement you wrote, "Sin created a separation between God and the creatures whom He created in His image -- a separation which could never be spanned by man's efforts, because he lost his original righteousness and has been rendered helpless in mending the separation. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6, emphasis added). "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, emphasis added)."
I am still working this through in my mind but I do not believe we inherited original sin, in the sense that we are all condemned in Adam because of his sin. Here is one argument that would seem to me to weigh heavily on that position. If I am condemned in Adam's sin and the wages of that is death, then there is no punishment for my personal sin, since I cannot be punished with death more than once. i suppose one could argue that we die physically in Adam and then die spiritually in our own sin eternally.
I am suggesting an alternative view dealing with the separation issue. when Adam sinned, he was cast out of the Garden, which I maintain represents the manifold presence of God or what I like to term, God's Perpetual Presence. There are a couple interesting things this view provides or us.
First of all, separated from God's perpetual presence is death if God is indeed life as Jesus says He is! Death is the absence of life.
Second, Adam's children and conseqeuently all who have been born in Adam are born, not in sin but in separation from God's perpetual presence. This is a perfect explanation for our sin nature. Separated from God, it is impossible for me to do anything that pleases God is His desire is for me to be connected to Him; thus His desire to be our God and for us to be His people. God is BOTH the giver and sustainer of life and life is accomplished with respect to His presence.
So, since I am not connected to Him, everything I do does not bring glory to Him or falls short of His glory and that is what Paul defines as sin in Romans 3:23. Unless and until I am connected to Him and the separation problem is corrected, everything I do is sin. This paints for us a picture very similar to what TD paints, however it does not require TI! As God seeks to reconcile men unto Himself, He is seeking to fix the separation problem, not necessariy the sin problem.
Look at the incarnation, which is God's "fix for the separation problem and the sin problem." In Jesus God became a man; the Creator became the created. That certainly addresses the separation problem. Jesus was crucified and then what; He is raised BODILY. In the rapture and resurrection of the saints... we are raised up physically as well. The final enemy Jesus defeated was not sin; it was death.
Note something else. What is God's remedy in conversion? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit! That is His work to correct our separation problem and once again man is restored to the position he was in before Adam's sin and the Perpetual Presence of the Lord is once again established and this time, it is for eternity.
I am excited about this perspective because it seems to fit well with all the arguments without the negative ramifications that make this whole discussion so polarizing.
Fire the thoughts my way!
May God bless us all as we seek to know Him and the power of His resurrection!
><>"
WWB - I'm looking for a post on Cornelius....
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteI'm headed to a three hour class, so I'll respond later.
Dr. W.,
Was Cornelius not depraved? Does he also not need the grace of God? I'm not sure exactly your point about Cornelius. . . .
Good post. I have not liked the term "totally depraved" because it sounds like we are as evil as we can be and that is certainly not always the case. Few of us are a Hitler or a serial killer I would hope. However, I do think that total inability is a good term. Like the brother above I have problems with the Augustine teaching of original sin. I do believe that sin destroys and we are sinners but I have problems saying that a baby is born sinful. What sin did they commit? It makes God seem so angry with us in that He looks down upon these infants being born and His anger burns against them simply because they are human beings. I don't know if I buy that. I believe that we sin because we want to sin and not because Adam sinned.
ReplyDeleteJust my thoughts. Don't mean to sound like an argument. I do hate sin!
WWB - I was thinking about Rick's statement, "I believe the Scriptures teach a sinner can seek." I was thinking of Cornelius when he said that. It seems to me that Cornelius may be an example of a person who did not need grace to seek God? I find it hard to believe that he is an exception. I haven't yet reconciled his behavior with what we know about total depravity/inabilty. Hence, I was hoping you would post on him and shed some biblical light on what seems an enigma to me :-)
ReplyDeleteDr. W.,
DeleteMy point about Cornelius is that, if all people are totally depraved and totally unable to seek God or come to and believe in Christ, then that includes Cornelius, and hence he must have been the recipient of God's grace through the Holy Spirit in order to be in the state in which he was prior to his regeneration, which was the sole product of the proclaimed gospel.
I do not think, however, that I can actually prove that exegetically from Acts 10, because Luke does not give us such intricate details. That has to be borne out systematically.
WWB - I agree, from what we know about depravity and inability, God's grace must have been active for Cornelius to seek God. Luke, the doctor, is usually fairly detailed, that's why I find it curious he leaves out some very important parts of Cornelius' story. I wonder if Luke assumed that the readers of his book already knew about Cornelius' story.
DeleteI hear stories of people who, after they come to Christ, point back to things in their past where they obviously saw God working but didn't recognize it until they became Christians. An example is the story of the missionaries killed in Ecuador back in the 1950's. The murderers saw lights (Angels) in the jungle when the missionaries died but didn't recognize them as Angels. After the murderers became Christians, they realized that those lights were Angels and that God was present during the missionaries' deaths. That revelation brought much comfort and strengthened their faith. Maybe there were similar stories that Cornelius shared with the early church that were not recorded in Acts?
Dr. W.,
DeleteGreat story! I've heard similar stories from missionaries as well. I think Luke's lack of detail with regard to Cornelius is due to it being beside the point. What do you think?
He's recording some history, and this particular history was of a Gentile (of all people!) being saved by grace through faith. I think the fact that this Gentile following a Jewish Messiah (and that God actually wanted to save the Gentiles too) was more astounding to them then his pre-conversion state.
I think the overall message to everyone was two-fold: 1) Gentiles are included in God's redemptive plan; and 2) the Gentiles do not have to follow Jewish (or Messianic Jewish) ways. This was quite radical.
I also suppose that with every convert in the NT, we don't need to be told over and over that men are depraved, that they need prevenient grace, etc., etc. There are some circumstances we are allowed to assume (that everyone has sinned, we all need a Savior, we need the work of the Spirit, etc.).
WWB - True, not every story is replete with details and I think you are correct. The point of the Cornelius story was about you don't have to do things the Jewish way. I was going to bring up the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip as another possible case study but I think that merits the same response as you gave for Cornelius.
DeleteThanks for your patience with me :-)
Patience, smatience, I love interacting with you!
DeleteBob's position as explained is interesting to me, and I believe there is some merit in it. It is true that what Adam passed on was separation from God (death) and that is what makes sin (autonomy from God) everyone's unavoidable lot.
ReplyDeleteTo Roy's point: an infant is conceived by sinners and born into separation (death). Does that make the infant a sinner (even if a cute, little one)? Perhaps not, but it is at least inevitable and sooner rather than later.
Concerning TI/TD: there is a difference between what God's presence (gracious stirring, etc) and what God's uniting (regeneration) make in one born in death. One born of Adam separated from God is independently or autonomously TD and TI. God's presence can stir or awaken capability in the sinner which is unable to be initiated apart from such. Hence a sinner under the Spirit's conviction can seek God. God's indwelling which is dependent upon trust in Christ enables the human to come to an agreement of heart and mind with God. So a sinner under the influence of God's Spirit can sense the need to seek, realize a guiltiness of sin, etc, but only one born again (and ultimately resurrected) can will what God wills.
SLW - If you are responding to me and my Cornelius enigma, I would appreciate more about your last paragraph (above). I would like to understand that better.
ReplyDeleteIf you're not talking to me, then never mind :-p
Since you're a nice guy I don't mind talking to you Dr. W, even if I didn't know I wanted to! ;-)
DeleteI do not think there is much of an enigma. Cornelius had been exposed to Judaism, which is obvious from the description of him as devout, a fearer of God and a benefactor of the Jews. There was a synagogue in Caesarea, Phillip had preached in the region, so there is ample reason to believe that Cornelius had been exposed to the Word of God prior to the event of Chapter 10. There is no reason to suppose he sought God without the influence of God's word and/or God's people, and plenty of reasons to posit that he did. He still he lacked the Gospel in that "seeking" state and was not born again until he heard it and believed. I do not see in Peter's remarks (v.34-35) any reason to suppose that Peter was suggesting anything other than a Rahab-like, or Ruth-like embrace of people exposed to God's word and God's people (the means of prevenient grace) who turned to follow God.
As for the paragraph: On his own, natural man, separated from God has no ability to span the gap and know God (TI). He really does not truly want to, even if he could (TD). When God "shows up" (some kind of Spirit visitation regardless of means) the person is stirred to capacities and spiritual awareness that would be otherwise non-functioning. Under that influence, a sinner can begin, if they choose, to seek and call out to God with some effectiveness. When the Gospel is heard and believed, the Spirit is no longer "with" that seeker, but "in" him. Now the seeker has not just the capacitated ability to be aware of God, but the ability to know him and walk by his Spirit (in agreement with God).
Whereas I do not believe that hearing the Gospel per se is the only means of the Spirit convicting, I do believe hearing the Gospel is the only means of getting saved.
SLW - Thanks for helping me to pull this together better. With WWB and your comments, I'm coming to a clearer picture of Cornelius.
DeleteWould you say the same for the Ethiopian eunuch? He was reading Isaiah and didn't understand what he was reading until Philip explained to him. We can assume that the HS was convicting him but he didn't know it until Philip explained?
Dr. W,
DeleteYes, I would put the Ethiopian eunuch is the same general pattern. The HS was convicting him before he knew what is was that was stirring him.
(I was let out of class early.) I read all the comments, and I thank you all so much for conveying your ideas and questions in such a godly manner. This is great, really!
ReplyDeleteAddressing Bob's questions and comments directly:
We do have a lot in common, we really do. You may say we go too far, and we may say you don't go far enough. In the end, though, we both think something must happen in order for depraved sinners to come to and believe in Christ. For us, it's prevenient, enabling grace. For you, it's merely the proclamation of the gospel (man is able to respond on his own). For Calvinists, it's regeneration (though some Calvinists do reject the notion of regeneration preceding faith).
You state, As God seeks to reconcile men unto Himself, He is seeking to fix the separation problem, not necessarily the sin problem.
I highlighted the word reconcile here because God actually is, I think Scripture teaches, fixing the problem of sin first, and then its consequent, separation. If He does not deal with the sin problem first, including its effects on our heart/soul/mind, then the separation problem cannot find a solution.
I think you've got the cart before the horse. We are separated, Isaiah stated, because of sin, not vice versa. Thus He must directly deal with sin (total depravity) and its effects (total inability) before He can bridge the separation problem.
You state, The final enemy Jesus defeated was not sin; it was death.
Again, I think you've got the cart before the horse. Sin had to be dealt with first, then death. The origin of all our problems, both physically and metaphysically, is sin, not death or separation. Separation is only present because of sin. First sin and its effects must be dealt a fatal blow and atonement, and then death and hence separation can be fixed.
I know to some on-lookers this may seem like a futile war of semantics. I don't think so, however, and I doubt you think so either; else we wouldn't spend such amounts of effort in trying to parse our words, articulate our positions, and exegete the Text.
I was hoping that you would have directly addressed the passages of Scripture from which I quoted, which explicitly teach total depravity and its consequent, total inability. You don't have to, mind you, but I was hoping you would have looked at the texts and then have informed me where you think I am not interpreting them correctly, or how those texts do not prove my case, etc.
I do love your conclusion though: May God bless us all as we seek to know Him and the power of His resurrection! I'll amen that, brother!
In the Council of Orange in AD 529, where the absolute necessity of prevenient grace was affirmed, Cornelius was specifically mentioned as one who was seeking God only by the prior working of God in his life (even though that is not explicit in the biblical text). I'll find the exact quote and post it.
ReplyDeleteDT
DT,
DeleteThanks for that! I look forward to it.
I do not believe that total depravity and an ability to seek are mutually exclusive. The Scriptures even indicate levels of seeking by a fallsen sinner.
ReplyDeleteJer.29:12-13 - Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Heb.11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
The words "all your heart" and "diligently" indicate a level emanating from the sinner's perspective. If it is only the Spirit without the sinner's outreach, then there would be no levels of seeking.
Here's the quote (it's actually the last sentence in the Conclusion to the canons of Orange):
ReplyDelete"We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."
I'd encourage folks to read all 25 Canons and the remainder of the Conclusion for the context of this statement.
DT
Thanks, DT :-)
DeleteBTW - If a fallen sinner does not have a God given ability to seek Him, then what does the Spirit appeal to when He draws that sinner? Unless you embrace irresistable grace, you must believe in some residual ability to seek.
ReplyDeleteHeb.12:17 - For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
How did Esau seek God's forgiveness without the Spirit? He was fallen I presume.
Was Esaus seeking GOD'S forgiveness, or that ISAAC would change his mind (ie "repent") regarding his blessing which he bestowed upon Jacob?
ReplyDeleteDT
Rick,
ReplyDeleteA "God-given" ability to seek Him, yes! An "inherent ability" to seek Him, no. I think we're on the same page.
I think he was seeking repentance for himself since it was he who sold his own birthright.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it was specifically for the 'inherited blessing' that he was seeking repentance for, and in comparing this to the Genesis account, we see Esau tearfully begging ISAAC for a blessing (Gen 27:38).
ReplyDeleteDT
I agree on one level, however showa that one who does not have the birthright can seek it.
ReplyDeleteOn one level.
WWB
ReplyDeleteYou wrote...
Sin created a separation between God and the creatures whom He created in His image -- a separation which could never be spanned by man's efforts, because he lost his original righteousness and has been rendered helpless in mending the separation. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6, emphasis added). "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, emphasis added).
I agree with your statements dealing with separation... I believe this condition of being separated from God IS our sinful nature that brings about our sin.
Not only are we, in a fallen state, Stop! You went from establishing that sin is in the world... then you went to separation and here you insert "fallen state"; I see no evidence of an "fallen state" in the scriptures. helpless in doing anything positive about it, but we are rightly judged as sinners. If we are take sin and the fact that we are sinners -- those who commit sin -- seriously, then we are, in my opinion, obligated to believe and to teach the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. "For sin is that condition and activity of human beings that is offensive to God, their Creator."7 Ok look again at what you just said... we are obligated to believe and teach Biblical Doctrine of TD... "for sin is that condition and activity of human beings that is offensive to God." I have no problem with the last statement but it has nothing to do with being obligated to teach TD. All unregenerate sinners are in a state of sin and unbelief and thus exist as unholy offenders in an environment of condemnation under the wrath of God (cf. John 3:18, 36). I do not even have a problem with this last statement either... but it does not demand TD... it simply sees the reality of sin in the lives of men... but does not say anything about his condition prior to his personal sin.
The state of sin in which the unregenerate sinner exists renders him unable to subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). "For this reason," explains Arminius, "the human heart itself is very often called deceitful and perverse, uncircumcised, hard and stony (Jer. 13:10; 17:9; Ezekiel 36:26): again... this is ok.Its . . . imagination is said to be 'only evil from his very youth' (Gen. 6:5; 8:21); and 'out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,' &c. (Matt. 15:19)."8 Let us focus on two passages from which Arminius quotes.
Look... my point is that separation certainly lends itself to much of what TD contends... man is no doubt depraved. My problem is with the total and then inability. The scriptures simply do not bear that out.
Let me ask you something... after Adam... show me one instance where TD is demonstrated... sin is everywhere BUT NOT depravity or inability to respond to God apart from any prevenient grace. It is not there... there is NO hint of TD...
Now... with my proposition of separation and that is the basis for our sin nature that we inherit from Adam... then everything I do is sin until my separation is corrected in Christ... now... since there is no TD... TI is not demanded and man has the opportunity to come near to the God who has come near to him. This is the basis for relationship and the basis for covenant in the OT and New.
><>"
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThank you for engaging the scriptures from which I quoted; but I think I wish you hadn't, now that I see how you interpret them. I'm beginning to think we have much less in common on this issue than I previously imagined.
Let me show you why you often get the "semi-Pelagian" charge from others. You write, I see no evidence of an "fallen state" in the scriptures.
Now, some people will be ready to yell, Heresy! Pelagius himself would be proud.
How can there be "no fallen state" though we have fallen? Does that make sense to you? Do Christians everywhere (most everywhere), from the last two thousand years, not refer to The Fall, when Adam and Eve "fell" from their original righteousness? Or are you saying that there was no fall, that Adam and Eve did not fall from their righteousness into rebellion?
If Adam and Eve did, in fact, fall, and this fall rendered them "dead" (Gen. 2:17), then how you claim that they (or we for that matter) are not "in a fallen state"? I'm baffled, seriously baffled.
You also write, I agree with your statements dealing with separation ... I believe this condition of being separated from God IS our sinful nature that brings about our sin.
So, "separation" was the cause of sin? Did Adam and Eve separate themselves from God and then sin? Can you not see from Scripture how they sinned first, by eating from the forbidden fruit, and then they "fell," "died," and were then "separated" from God, and not vice versa?
How would you even articulate them separating first and then sinning? And where in Scripture do you get such an idea? And who in history as ever articulated any of this in any such way? Where in Scripture is it stated that separation IS our sinful nature?
You claim to be "developing" this new doctrine of yours, but then you ever so boldly and dogmatically declare what you know to be true. But when we look at what you're actually saying, it appears that you don't take sin or the fall seriously whatsoever -- not whatsoever. That's extremely problematic.
How can you read Romans 3:10-18 and then conclude that you don't see a fallen state in the scriptures? Seriously, I am beside myself.
I hope that you completely abandon this new teaching you're aiming to develop. I fear it is nothing more than a repelling of Calvinism in general, when such does not have to be the case. I doubt seriously any believer disdains some of the core distinctives of Calvinism (meticulous sovereignty, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace) more than the Arminians who frequent this site -- Arminians, by the way, who by and large actually do hold to Total Depravity and Total Inability, at least the Arminians who are members of the Society of Evangelical Arminians.
Finally, I'd like to see your scriptural evidences that separation "is the basis for our sin nature" and not vice versa. I look forward to engaging the scriptures with you.
'Til then.
William,
DeleteI did not say there no "fallen state" as you see it. My position is we inherited this separated state from Adam and that separated state from the perpetual presence of God is what gives us this sinful nature to sin. Basically, one could argue that there is very little difference in what I am calling a separated state and depravity. I would not have a problem with that myself, at least right now.
Your reference to Romans 3 simply talks about man in his sinful state... the passage has nothing to do with total depravity... which is what I disagree with.
I 100% disagree that I do not take what happened in the garden seriously. Adam sinned. His sin cost him a life in the garden which I relate to being in God's perpetual presence. ( I love that phrase.) Now... I suggest that is what Adam passed on to every individual born. I suppose I do believe in an original sin; I do not believe I or anyone is condemned by Adam's one sin in the garden. Here is why...
If I am condemned because of Adam's sin in the garden and the wages of that sin condition is death, then my personal sin is of no consequence because I am already condemned to death. I cannot die twice. Also as you stated in your original post, TD leads to TI and I am adamantly opposed to that.
Now, separated from God I cannot do anything on my own to correct that problem. There is the similarity perhaps to TD. It is God who has provided the remedy to correct the separation problem and it is the Holy Spirit that convincts me of my sin and seeks to draw me to Him and through repentance and saving faith, I trust Christ and God forgives me of my sin and the Holy Spirit takes up residence in my heart and I now belong to the Father; I become an heir to God and a joint heir with Jesus.
So the Pelagian argument goes out the window... I do not have men earning righteousness on their own.
All I am saying is that this state of separation is an explanation of the sin nature that we are born with. I am seeing it a little differently from most. I do not like the foundation of TD... and certainly not TI...
My position, which is evolving as we speak stands well against the backdrop of TD without the issue of TI... so I will continue to work on it.
I do appreciate your input as well as others...
><>"
I cannot die twice.
DeleteThere is a second death.
I do not see why, given what you've described, that you find the term "total depravity" such an issue. It doesn't have to be taken in the Calvinistic caricature (which I take issue with as well), and you seem to be circling it unnecessarily trying to avoid calling your understanding by the name.
Bob,
DeleteYou said..... “If I am condemned because of Adam's sin in the garden and the wages of that sin condition is death, then my personal sin is of no consequence because I am already condemned to death.”
Ezekiel 18:20 (NIV)....
The soul who sins is the one who will die.
TD says Nope...you were born dead to begin with.
Romans 5:12 (NKJV).....
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
TD says Nope, because that verse should read.....
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because Adam sinned.”
Isaiah 59:2 (NKJV) reads....
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God.....”
TD says Nope. You were born separated from God. Your personal iniquities are irrelevant.
God bless.
wingedfooted1
SLW...
DeleteThe second death is the "final separation" that comes from leaving this life separated from God. I am not sure what you mean in TD "taken in the Calvinistic sense"... I am NOT aware of any other way it can be taken. Both Arminians and Calvinists see it virtually the same as I see it.
WF1
I am NOT at all saying that our sin is insignificant. I am saying that when one begins with TD... man is born "dead"; he is condemned in Adam's sin and IF THAT is true... THEN there is no further punishment for sin. This implication of TD is one of the arguments AGAINST TD... at least in MY mind.
Thanks for all the input! I really do appreciate the dialogue that is really CIVIL!
><>"
Not all that hold to TD believe in original guilt. I am one. Russ
DeleteBob,
DeleteThen one can die twice.
The Calvinist caricature is of a corpse, unable to do anything. The Arminian conception is of one unwilling and unable to truly reach out to, understand, or believe in God apart from Divine enablement. The Calvinist perspective requires regeneration (akin to Frankenstein) before a spiritually dead person can be reconciled to God, the Arminian approach requires prevenient grace.
A man has fallen into a deep ditch. It is 100' feet deep and 50' wide. The walls are so steep it is impossible for him to get out without someone lowering a rope. But he is capable of attempting to scale the walls, or get a running start and jump up on the wall, but in the end he cannot escape or even get close.
ReplyDeleteThat, to me, is total depravity. A complete and utter inability to save oneself but not that sinners don't try. And the man in the ditch, when he realizes his impossible situation, can yell up for someone to lower a rope, but only a Person 100' above can lower that rope.
And is it not possible that millions of sinners realize to some extent their predicament and they create their own religions. Total depravity reveals that there is nothing redemptive within us, and we are enemies of God, and that we cannot even help save ourselves.
But it seems to me, there is a residue of the image of God which can communicate to us the existence of a deity, the existence of an afterlife, and a desire to seek both. But only the Spirit can reveal Christ to our fallen natures - miraculously and in a mystery.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that man is incapable of saving himself. That is just scriptural. But Calvinism’s total depravity is much more than this. TD means the man in the ditch hates the One lowering the rope. TD means that man doesn’t even want the rope. In fact, TD teaches that man wouldn’t even understand what the rope is for.
You said “But it seems to me, there is a residue of the image of God which can communicate to us the existence of a deity, the existence of an afterlife, and a desire to seek both. But only the Spirit can reveal Christ to our fallen natures”
I believe the scriptures support this. And the Spirit does reveal Christ to us thru the written word of God.
God bless.
wingedfooted1
WF - I need not display my non-Calvinistcredentials! :)
ReplyDelete