If our nature is unredeemable, then Christ died for nothing. Total depravity simply states that we, as humans, have no inherent spiritual goodness or inclination toward God absent God's divine display of grace toward us. Nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with whether evil men can give good gifts to their kids, as Jesus acknowledged. Arminius and Calvin agree on this point.
Glad they agreed. Thanks RK... Not moving on to any of the other parts of TULIP until I get my head wrapped around this one. However, I just went to one of those websites TrustGzus mentioned and found this: "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine." The Five Points Of Calvinism So am I missing something here or is it believed that man is incapable of choosing? Do you believe this site might be authoritative to what Calvinists believe today and historically? Forgive my ignorance, but when I first studied this belief as a younger man, I quickly dismissed it and gave it no more thought.
I have no idea about the website or its content. I try to avoid secondary sources when possible. Scripture is crystal clear that man, absent the influence of God, is utterly incapable of seeking God. I think that the disconnect in much of our theology arises when we go beyond what Scripture teaches. As to the bolded, underlined portion. Arminians agree in predestination. But the devil is in the details of (a) what does predestination mean and (b) what is its mechanism. You will find that the primary divide between Arminius and Calvin is always in the mechanism. Here's what Arminus actually said. (NOTE: Many "teachers" or "scholars" on both sides of the aisle completely misrepresent what the other actually said... that's why I prefer the horses' mouths.) “Im the state of Primitive Innocence, man had a mind endued with a clear understanding of heavenly light and truth concerning God, and his works and will, as far as was sufficient for the salvation of man and the glory of God; he had a heart imbued with ‘righteousness and true holiness,’ and with a true and saving love of good; and powers abundantly qualified or furnished perfectly to fulfill the law which God had imposed on him. This admits easily of proof, from the description of the image of God, after which man is said to have been created, (Gen 1:26-27) from the law divinely imposed on him, which had a promise and a threat appended to it, (Gen 2:17) and lastly from the analogous restoration of the same image in Christ Jesus. (Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence, as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind and relating to spiritual life) inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the dominion of sin. For ‘to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey,’ (Rom 6:16) and ‘of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,’ and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet 2:19) In this 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. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.” Arminius, J., Complete Works of Arminius, Volume 1, Public Disputations of Arminius, Disputation 11 (On the Free Will of Man and its Powers) “THIS is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.” Arminius, J., Complete Works of Arminius, Declaration of the Sentiments, 5:3
Talking about Total Depravity Tim, At PCIM we had a pretty good discussion about Total Depravity when Aaron was asking about it. I can find the thread. Maybe we cleaned it out. Anyway, I know that I posted a quote from R.C. Sproul to use as a launching pad as he's a horse from the Reformed side that represents it well and gives pretty clear definitions. I will post what I think I probably posted at that time from Sproul. I don't recall anyone really objecting to it if my memory isn't failing. Here's the quote.... The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and utter depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am a sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin. Perhaps radical corruption is a better term to describe our fallen condition than “total depravity.” I am using the word radical not so much to mean “extreme,” but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. Radical comes from the Latin word for “root” or “core.” Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12) It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); we are “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14); we are in “captivity to the law of sin” (Romans 7:23) and are “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).
Let me chew on this gentlemen. Of what RK had posted, I noted one particular area of the Arminius quote: As I agree as a whole that in the unregenerated state, man is a Natural Brute Beast (2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;) That is total depravity. But that is the unregenerate state. For you to say that even now, if that's what you were saying TrustGzus, you possess total depravity in your regenerated state would be incorrect. Your soul, being born again and a new creature, is without sin and therefore the man only possess depravity in the flesh and the heart (spirit). 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I think RK said it well when he posted: Or did I misunderstand what you were saying? If you dig up that thread, I'd like to read it.
Revelation 3:5 It's my understanding that ALL mankind is written in the Book of Life. Some are erased. Tells me all men are chosen. A few don't accept the offer, and are taken out.
Wouldn't that make salvation the default state? Seems a bit odd to me for a letter meant specifically for the church in Sardis.
As in Philippians 4:3? Revelation isn't my thing, so I'm not 'up' on its interpretations (so feel free to educate me). In any case, Paul in Philippians 4:3 refers to himself and his fellow workers (the women and Clement and others) as having their names in the book of life, so it's not clear to me how the names of 'all mankind' are in the book of life if, according to Paul, it's those who 'labour in the gospel' whose names are found in the book of life.
Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life. One could only assume Paul was talking about believers in the Lambs Book of Life because he only referenced it in passing here.
I'm not following (sorry). You were saying that there were two books: (1) the book of life, and (2) the Lamb's book of life. In Philippians 4 Paul calls it the 'book of life', so which of the two books are you saying Paul is referring to, and what's the difference between the two generally?
Look into Revelation and note that the "Book of Life" is mentioned four times and the "Lambs Book of Life" is mentioned twice. If they were the same book, they would have been called the same thing. They weren't. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. When you see the "book of life" mentioned, you see that a name can be blotted out. When the "Lambs Book of Life" is mentioned you don't see any reference to a name being blotted out. Paul most certainly was referring to the "Lambs Book of Life" because he was referencing the saints. Get my drift? Lambs Book of Life or the Book of Life of the Lamb - Rev. 13:8 / 21:27 Book of Life - Rev. 3:5 / 17:8 / 20:15 / 22:19
I do, but I'm not sure I agree. Revelation 13:8 -> τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Ἀρνίου (lit. the book the life of the Lamb) Philippians 4:3 -> ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς. (lit. in book life) There's nothing really complicated about the Greek, except that Paul doesn't call it the Lamb's book of life, simply 'book (of) life'. I suppose it's fine to argue from Revelation what Paul was really referring to, but that doesn't seem quite right to me given your earlier suggestion that there are two books. Philippians 4:3 seems to be a mention of one (book of life), while Revelation 13 is a mention of the other (Lamb's book of life). Or maybe the τοῦ Ἀρνίου is assumed in Philippians 4:3, or simply made more explicit in Revelation 13:8 - after all, whose 'book of life' is it ultimately? It's the book of life τοῦ Ἀρνίου, of course. But then this means that there is only one book. So what is the difference between the two, such that one might contain the names of 'all mankind' (who are then blotted out rather than added in), while the other contains the names of just the saints? Which leads to the other question: what's the purpose in listing all the names of mankind, if both books ultimately contain the same list? Or are you saying that the saints are a distinct set from believers generally?
It's OK if you don't agree my friend. That's just my own impression of it. Again, my own impressions is that when we are conceived, our name is placed in it. (book of life) When we are born again, our name is placed in the Lambs Book of Life. When someone commits the unpardonable sin, their name is blotted out. Food for another thread I think.
Sure: I'm not trying to argue one position or another, but understand what you're saying. I still don't understand the difference between the two books if both ultimately list the same information (with the exception that one has a bunch of names blotted out)?
I personally agree with Number 6. I see no reason to assume there are two books of life. One without a possessive mentioned (who owns it anyway) and one belonging to the Lamb. But for sake of argument, let's grant the two books. Take the verse Tom reference and the very next reference to "the book of life" that isn't the lambs . . . Revelation 3:5 (AV) 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Revelation 17:8 (AV) 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. While 3:5 talks about blotting out, 17:8 seems to indicate they weren't in there from the foundation of the world. I suppose one could then attempt to claim the phrase "from the foundation of the world" doesn't apply to "not written" but to "the book of life" as in its existence is from the foundation of the world. Seems like a stretch to me if someone wanted to claim that. But while we're at it, note the parallel in Revelation 17:8 with Revelation 13:8 to the "Lamb's book of life". Revelation 13:8 (AV) 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Notice, the same phrase "not written in . . . from the foundation of the world." Same wording applied to both books. Just some food for thought.
If you interpret Revelation 3:5 as saying all men are chosen (though it never says that directly), then you have to come up with an explanation for this verse in Matthew and what Jesus really means by this . . . Matthew 20:16 (AV) 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. All or chosen or not all are chosen. Which is it? Or what does one of those two passages really mean? Also, not trying to come off overly nit-picky - I apologize if I do but just trying to fit it all together, it's not a few that don't accept the offer and are left out, but many that fit that description and few remaining . . . Matthew 7:13–14 (AV) 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Sorry, I didn't clarify... This is referring to the Book of Life and not the Lambs Book. IMHO, no one is ever blotted out of the Lambs Book of Life... Just saying.
Tim, I'm not sure Sproul in that comment speaks to the current state or not. I could see taking it either way. However, he's definitely speaking to our unregenerated, pre-salvific state. As to post-salvific state, this depends a lot on whether or not one thinks the old nature is gone. We know from 2 Peter 1:4 we have been made partakers of the divine nature. Obviously the divine nature does not suffer the effects of total depravity. The quote I offered has four paragraphs. The last two paragraphs are just Scriptures that Sproul quotes so one can't really disagree with those, just interpretation of them. So, is there anything in the first two paragraphs he wrote that you find objectionable? I'll repost all four paragraphs here . . . The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and utter depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am a sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin. Perhaps radical corruption is a better term to describe our fallen condition than “total depravity.” I am using the word radical not so much to mean “extreme,” but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. Radical comes from the Latin word for “root” or “core.” Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12) It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); we are “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14); we are in “captivity to the law of sin” (Romans 7:23) and are “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).