Total Depravity

[seer]

In the Arminian Sense:

James Arminius' teaching on the will of man:

"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."

There is so much nonsense about what the Classic Arminian position on depravity,I thought I would clear it up.

Arminius,and later Wesley,Clarke,et al taught that in his natural state man can not move towards God. And any ability that a man has to believe,repent,or do good comes from God alone. "All good gifts come down from above." The ONLY point where the Calvinist and Arminian differ is at the point of resistance. Can a man resist the grace of God? There are a number of texts that seem to show that man can resist God's overtures Isa.5:4,Matt.23:37,Acts 7:51,Rom.10:21,etc,etc,etc...

[sacre]

To tell you the truth, I have never actually heard it admitted before that Arminius believed in the Complete Inability principle (although I would disagree that the modern Arminian opinion maches up with this). If we truly believe this, then, we still have a fundamental opposing view of soteriology... but let's focus on the similarity for a minute. After having agreed that we cannot respond to the gospel call without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (i.e. "regenerated" and "renewed", in the words of Arminius), then I have one question for you, and I ask that you make your answer as simple as possible for the sake of clarity:

Would you equate "regeneration" and "renewal" with the changing of our sinful nature? That is to say, do you really believe that we are "born again" (re-generated) upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

I think you see where this goes logically.

Regards,
R

[seer]

Would you equate "regeneration" and "renewal" with the changing of our sinful nature? That is to say, do you really believe that we are "born again" (re-generated) upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

I'am not sure how Arminius would answer this. I do believe that we get our ability to believe and repent from the influence of the Holy Spirit. Now at what moment does it pass from mere influence to complete regeneration or re-birth? Of that I am not sure. Certaintly folks like Cornelius and Lydia experience this influence before their actual saving faith in Christ and regeneration.

[sacre]

Well, that wasn't exactly the simple answer I wanted, but I think I see what you mean. I'll mention this: Arminius seems to assert that the "renewal" and "regeneration" comes along directly with the indwelling. I find this Biblical, but would YOU agree with it?

Regards,
R.

[seer]

I'll mention this: Arminius seems to assert that the "renewal" and "regeneration" comes along directly with the indwelling. I find this Biblical, but would YOU agree with it?

But remember Arminius believed that you could resist even this renewal and regeneration, and later throw it away by complete neglect. So it would not be a one time definite act as the Calvinist looks at it. But rather an on going process - open to all men...

To Quote: "this work of regeneration and illumination is not completed in one moment; but that it is advanced and promoted, from time to time, by daily increase. For our old man is crucified, that the body of sin might be destroyed,' (Rom. vi, 6,) and that the inward man may be renewed day by day. (2 Cor. iv, 16.) "

So am I getting your question right?

[George Blaisdell]

sacre: writes:

>>>Would you equate "regeneration" and "renewal" with the changing of our sinful nature? That is to say, do you really believe that we are "born again" (re-generated) upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?<<<

Arminius, being a member of the early Church, would doubtless have answered that the moment of regeneration was in the Mystery of Baptism. It is generally granted that the simple fact that one has had an experience of the Holy Spirit and now feels that they HAVE the Holy Spirit as a consequence of that experience, confirmed in turn by subsequent spiritual experiences, is NOT what the early Church meant by regeneration. Yet the regeneration goes on throughout one's lifetime, and the rebirth of the person in Baptism is but the initiation of this life-long and eternal walk in our Lord...

I had not actually read any of Armenius - He certainly would seem to be kindred to Calvin, yes? Or at least to many Calvinists who are posting here on TheologyWeb. But I think Armenius was a Bishop in the Church, and was thereby speaking from the perspective of the practices of the early Church. IOW, the kindredness is ideational only, and not yet, from his perspective, all that ontological...

geo

[seer]

Say George, it's good to see some one from Eastern Orthodox Church here. I have some questions if you don't mind. First let me say that I have always had much respect for your Church - what I know about it.

So to my questions:

1. I was told that your Church never really canonized the Book of Revelation - is that true?

2. That you have a somewhat different view of hell.

[Blake Reas]

I do not think that you can get around Total Depravity in Scripture. I think what Arminus was saying was that God gives us Preinvient Grace. If you do away with this you are back into pelagianism which is that man pulls himself up by his bootstraps and comes to God. Preinvient Grace says that God has given everyone just enough Grace to come to him or reject him. I do not agree with this per se. Just giving what I know of it. For the Calvinist to call the Weselyan a Pelegian is wrong and dishonest they teach nothing of the sort.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[seer]

Preinvient Grace says that God has given everyone just enough Grace to come to him or reject him.

Exactly ! John 1:7-9,John 12:32, Romans 1:19,20,Romans 2:14,15, etc... And of course that would go a long way in explaining texts like 1 Timothy 2:4.


I do not agree with this per se. Just giving what I know of it. For the Calvinist to call the Weselyan a Pelegian is wrong and dishonest they teach nothing of the sort.

Thank you! :bunny:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79381#post79381)
seer:



Exactly ! John 1:7-9,John 12:32, Romans 1:19,20,Romans 2:14,15, etc... And of course that would go a long way in explaining texts like 1 Timothy 2:4.




Thank you! :bunny:

I used to be an Arminian so I am not totally ignorant of it:rofl: :rofl: ! Weselyanism is probably the only other place I would go actually. Anything that denies Total Depravity is not evangelical. Also I do not think that either side really has it figured out. There tends to be an emphasis on God's sovereignty and then on Human Responsibility. I am more along the lines of holding it in Paradox. This will not sit well with the Rationalistic ones on this forum but then again we only know so much about God and then we get lost in the AByss.

Blake

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[seer]

I used to be an Arminian so I am not totally ignorant of it ! Weselyanism is probably the only other place I would go actually. Anything that denies Total Depravity is not evangelical. Also I do not think that either side really has it figured out. There tends to be an emphasis on God's sovereignty and then on Human Responsibility. I am more along the lines of holding it in Paradox. This will not sit well with the Rationalistic ones on this forum but then again we only know so much about God and then we get lost in the AByss.

Hey I used to be a Calvinist ! Go figure. Although I probably am every other week still. To be honest I think the paradox of God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility is answered best in the Classic Arminian model. Actually the paradox is removed...

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79386#post79386)
seer:

I used to be an Arminian so I am not totally ignorant of it ! Weselyanism is probably the only other place I would go actually. Anything that denies Total Depravity is not evangelical. Also I do not think that either side really has it figured out. There tends to be an emphasis on God's sovereignty and then on Human Responsibility. I am more along the lines of holding it in Paradox. This will not sit well with the Rationalistic ones on this forum but then again we only know so much about God and then we get lost in the AByss.

Hey I used to be a Calvinist ! Go figure. Although I probably am every other week still. To be honest I think the paradox of God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility is answered best in the Classic Arminian model. Actually the paradox is removed...

That is the thing, we cannot do away with paradoxes if we did we would need to throw the Trinity, incarnation etc out the window because they make no sense to our rationalism.

Blake

[George Blaisdell]

seer: writes:

> Say George, it's good to see some one from Eastern Orthodox Church here.

I am only baptized 2 months now, so am not all that qualified...

> I have some questions if you don't mind. First let me say that I have always had much respect for your Church - what I know about it.

It's the original Church... Which is a communion of autonomous Churches

> So to my questions:

> 1. I was told that your Church never really canonized the Book of Revelation - is that true?

No. It is the Church that gave you Revelation as a part of the canon... There was great hesitation due to the difficulty of that text, and the potential it had for being misunderstood. Well justified, judging from the misunderstandings that we see rampant these days...

> 2. That you have a somewhat different view of hell.

I don't know - Hell is the state of being of a person who is in the presence of Christ unrepentant... Falling into the hands of the Living God is not a matter to be taken lightly... We are all coming back to God - For those in Christ, it will be heaven... For those not in Him, it will not...

That's a thumbnail of what I understand so far...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

seer: writes:

> > I am more along the lines of holding it in Paradox.

> I think the paradox of God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility is answered best in the Classic Arminian model.

The Orthodox understanding is synergy, that both are required - 100% of human effort, [needed rags], and 100% accomplished by God.

If a person does not try, or panders to self indulgence, he is lost, and if God does not grant grace, there is nothing, for the efforts of humans are not sufficient, however needed they are.

geo

[sacre]

Seer, what you describe and what you quote is the equivilant to the ongoing process of sanctification, but I am speaking strictly of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I trust that we would both agree that, after the indwelling, you are completely justified (and I do mean "completely"), and thus "saved."

I do not see the doctine of Prevenient Grace as Biblical, but let's assume for a moment that it is true that, bound up in the common grace that we both agree exists, the ability that is granted to us to choose to follow God. The question becomes this: why does Jacob choose to follow God on the basis of prevenient grace, but Esau does not? What about them makes one submit to the law of God and one rebel?

Godspeed,
R

[seer]

The question becomes this: why does Jacob choose to follow God on the basis of prevenient grace, but Esau does not? What about them makes one submit to the law of God and one rebel?

One never knows why,for sure,one resists and one doesn't. In my case I was in jail looking at 40 years for two counts of armed robbery. I called out to God in desperation - He answered. I was 37 at the time and barely gave God a second glance before that day. So did God lead me into a life of crime to save my soul? To humble me? I don't know - but this I do know sacre, if a man does not have the God given ability to respond, he is not responsible for not responding - period, and I don't care what kind of high language that doctrine is couched in - it makes God unjust.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 08:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80145#post80145)
seer:



One never knows why,for sure,one resists and one doesn't. In my case I was in jail looking at 40 years for two counts of armed robbery. I called out to God in desperation - He answered. I was 37 at the time and barely gave God a second glance before that day. So did God lead me into a life of crime to save my soul? To humble me? I don't know - but this I do know sacre, if a man does not have the God given ability to respond, he is not responsible for not responding - period, and I don't care what kind of high language that doctrine is couched in - it makes God unjust.

So you can say what makes God unjust? I have a hard time with this, that God's creatures can shake their fists in His face and say what you are doing is unjust. That is ridicoulous to me.

Blake

[seer]

So you can say what makes God unjust? I have a hard time with this, that God's creatures can shake their fists in His face and say what you are doing is unjust. That is ridicoulous to me.

First Blake in texts like Ez.18:25,29 God tells men to judge His sense of justice. Second I am not,in any fashion,shaking my fists at God. I am questioning what I believe to be a man made doctrine gleened from various proof texts.

Remember it is scripture that says that God so love the world.

[Jaltus]

Good call, seer.

I think you would enjoy Molinism, a form of Arminianism that puts God's foreknwoeldge together with man's Libertarian Free will through middle-knwoledge. Pop on over to those threads within this forum.

[seer]

Yes I have read Bill Craig's stuff on Molinism. It makes much sense...

[sacre]

One never knows why, for sure, one resists and one doesn't.

It comes to this. I am confident I can give you an answer to my question. To restate, the question was this:

"Why did Jacob submit and Esau rebel? Why did Jacob choose when Esau did not?"

Here is my answer, from Romans 9:

10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Why did Jacob choose and Esau reject the same call? Because God chose one and not the other. Is this unjust? By no means, for God has that sovereign right.

Regards,
R.

[seer]

12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

Sheesh! sacre,how long have you been around these debates? This is not speaking of Jacob the individual or Esau the individual. And it is not speaking of individual salvation: It is speaking of God's preference of the nation Israel over the nation Edom.

And if you think I am wrong show me anywhere in scripture where Esau the man served Jacob the man... Edom the nation did serve Israel the nation.

Also see my thread the Vessels of Wrath - where I show that these vessels are the unbelieving Jews that God hardened,and the same ones He hardens He also has mercy on...

[sacre]

12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

This is not speaking of Jacob the individual or Esau the individual. And it is not speaking of individual salvation: It is speaking of God's preference of the nation Israel over the nation Edom.

This interpretation does not mesh with the previous verse, which refers to the brothers' personal deeds, nor the whole point of the analogy, as stated in vv. 15-16: "15 For He says to Moses, 'I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.' 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

The point, then, is not that Esau physically served Jacob, but that their spiritual state is symbolized in that national servitude. The spiritual state was decided completely by God, before either one had done any good or bad, and thus salvation is from God alone.

Regards,
R. McIntyre.

[seer]

...The point, then, is not that Esau physically served Jacob, but that their spiritual state is symbolized in that national servitude. The spiritual state was decided completely by God, before either one had done any good or bad, and thus salvation is from God alone.

What? Where does scripture say that their spiritual state is symbolized in that national servitude? This is not speaking of individual salvation - period. As a matter of fact this whole discourse is about God moving His blessings/earthly service from national Israel to the Church.

Beside hate and love are used as terms of preference. Christ said unless you hate your mother,father,etc... Did Christ really teach you to hate your parents?

[sacre]

Seer, you are asserting that "this passage has nothing to do with individual salvation", but I haven't seen any proof. I am fairly certain that this passage supports my view, and have tried to give proof by the surrounding verses, but I cannot do much more if you continue to assert things without making your proof clear to me.

Also, I agree with your explanation of "love" and "hate" in this passage. As you said, they are used as terms of preference. "...for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice (PREFERENCE) would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls..."

Regards,
R

[seer]

...Seer, you are asserting that "this passage has nothing to do with individual salvation", but I haven't seen any proof. I am fairly certain that this passage supports my view, and have tried to give proof by the surrounding verses, but I cannot do much more if you continue to assert things without making your proof clear to me.

Sacre, I showed that the Esau and Jacob thing was about nations - not individuals. Then you made this claim

"The point, then, is not that Esau physically served Jacob, but that their spiritual state is symbolized in that national servitude."

Until you can back this assumption up,we can not get anywere. Because we are starting with a faulty premise.

BTW - The ones that God is hardening here are the same ones He will have mercy on,keep reading to chapt 11:

11:25-31

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a HARDENING has come upon part of ISRAEL, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all ISRAEL will be saved; as it is written, The Deliverer will come from ZION, he will banish ungodliness from JACOB; and this will be my covenant with THEM when I take away THEIR sins. As regards the gospel THEY are ENEMIES of God, for your sake; but as regards election THEY are BELOVED for the sake of their forefathers.For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of THEIR disobedience, so THEY have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you THEY also may receive MERCY.

[sacre]

Seer, I was under the impression that quoting the previous verse, referring to their PERSONAL works (or lack thereof), was proof of at least some sort. If their personal deeds are of issue, then it seems to me that it is at least more proof than what I have heard for the other opinion. Furthermore, you may have "shown" that it refers to nations, but you haven't "shown" me on this thread.

Also, about Romans 11... that opens up another whole can of worms regarding Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, which I'd rather not get into right now, since I have a feeling you wouldn't be a Covenant theologian. If I am wrong, let me know, and maybe we can draw it in together.

Godspeed,
R.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80180#post80180)
seer:

12 it was said to her, &quot;THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.&quot;
13 Just as it is written, &quot;JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.&quot;

Sheesh! sacre,how long have you been around these debates? This is not speaking of Jacob the individual or Esau the individual. And it is not speaking of individual salvation: It is speaking of God's preference of the nation Israel over the nation Edom.

And if you think I am wrong show me anywhere in scripture where Esau the man served Jacob the man... Edom the nation did serve Israel the nation.

Also see my thread the Vessels of Wrath - where I show that these vessels are the unbelieving Jews that God hardened,and the same ones He hardens He also has mercy on...


Actually the text of the OT does not exactly matter here. Paul could be giving and example. So you must show from the context that he means nations or individuals the OT context will not determine the new context.

Blake

[seer]

Actually the text of the OT does not exactly matter here. Paul could be giving and example. So you must show from the context that he means nations or individuals the OT context will not determine the new context.

Actually no Blake. It is on you to show that Paul had individuals in mind especially since he STRESSED the point that the elder will serve the younger. And the fact that the text he quoted from had to only do with nations:

Genesis 25:23

" And the LORD said to her, Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger."

That is exactly what Paul quotes,and it has to do with nations.
:cheers: :cheers:

[seer]

If their personal deeds are of issue, then it seems to me that it is at least more proof than what I have heard for the other opinion. Furthermore, you may have "shown" that it refers to nations, but you haven't "shown" me on this thread.

See my post to Blake. It is about nations. Take off your Calvinist sun glasses for awhile.... :cool:

[George Blaisdell]

seer: writes:

> So did God lead me into a life of crime to save my soul? To humble me? I don't know... <

John 9:1-7 1 And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from his birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

We are all looking at 40 to life for crimes far beyond the mere taking of another's life or property... For we are killing God and worshipping demons in our very lives... Every time we do anything that is not consciously directed to the glory of God...

Yet in the arrogance of our blindness, not even able to see the walls of our prison, we point our fingers and call the carreer criminal blind...

> - but this I do know sacre, if a man does not have the God given ability to respond, he is not responsible for not responding - period, and I don't care what kind of high language that doctrine is couched in - it makes God unjust. <

THAT, my friend, is the unadorned truth, and you are right: It doesn't matter a hoot how phonily "theological" the language is in which one couches the lie that man is not responsible - If he is not able to respond, he is not accountable, and within the prisons, every con has that bit of knowledge solidly under him, both the born-agains and the not-born-again unrepentants...

geo