Defining Total Depravity - Ephesians 4

[rhutchin]

Ephesians 4 has:

Scripture Verse:

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Here Paul speaks of the “other gentiles” in contrast to the believer. Paul’s intent in using the term, “other gentile,” is to identify those who are not saved.

Of the unsaved, Paul says that they:

1. Have the understanding darkened,
2. Are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
3. Are past feeling having given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
4. Are corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.

This is very harsh language. Those who use the term, Total Depravity, use the term as a summary description of the unsaved and that term may be defined as above. To say that the unsaved are Totally Depraved is to say that which Paul says of them above.

We may additionally add to this definition, those things that Paul said of the unsaved in Ephesians 2 and Romans 8 and all those other characteristics given throughout the Scriptures of the unsaved.

When reading the term, "Totally Depraved," think of the person Paul writes of in Ephesians 2 and 4 and elsewhere in his letters and recall that this is what the Scriptures tell us about the unsaved.

[Phat8594]

Here Paul speaks of the “other gentiles” in contrast to the believer. Paul’s intent in using the term, “other gentile,” is to identify those who are not saved.

You are assuming that the word "other" is in the original manuscript. However, based on the older manuscripts we can look at another translation:

17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

So what do we know?

1. Have the understanding darkened

1. Those who are not Christians have a darkened understanding.

2. Are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

2. Because of their hard hearts they are alienated form the life of God through the ignorance that is in them.

3. Are past feeling having given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

3. They have become callous and given themselves up to sin. (Note that Paul doesn't say they were born this way)

4. Are corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.

That the old self is corrupt through evil desires and that Christians are to put on the new self.

This is very harsh language. Those who read the passage in context know that Paul is not writing to give his dissertation on Total Depravity. Rather he is drawing a contrast between what unbelievers look like and what believers should look like. Just like the other passages, Paul is clear that there is a difference between a believer and an unbeliever (think Romans 7). However, nowhere does Paul say that an unbeliever is unable to respond to the Gospel, or that a believer is unable to sin. Rather, through encouragement and commands (to both) it is clear that both a believer can sin, and an unbeliever can respond to the Gospel. This is why Paul encourages the believer here in Ephesians 4 to:

put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

When reading the term "Totally Depraved", remember that Paul is not describing the Calvinist theological term in Ephesians 2 and 4 or elsewhere in his letters. And remember that the Scriptures tell us that one who is in Christ should and will look and be different than one who is not in Christ.

[rhutchin]

When reading the term "Totally Depraved", remember that Paul is not describing the Calvinist theological term in Ephesians 2 and 4 or elsewhere in his letters.

Correct. It is the Calvinists who are taking that which Paul said of unbelievers, as well as that which we read in the rest of the Scriptures, and using the term, Total Depravity, as a shorthand way to describe unbelievers.

And remember that the Scriptures tell us that one who is in Christ should and will look and be different than one who is not in Christ.

The one is is not in Christ is thoroughly described by Paul, in his epistles, and elsewhere in the Scriptures and all that the Scriptures say about the one not in Christ can be summarized by the term, Total Depravity, or any other term that people want to use.

If the term, Total Depravity, does not appeal to you, then you can suggest your own summary term.

[Phat8594]

The one is is not in Christ is thoroughly described by Paul, in his epistles, and elsewhere in the Scriptures and all that the Scriptures say about the one not in Christ can be summarized by the term, Total Depravity, or any other term that people want to use

The problem is when the term Total Depravity is used to mean that man is unable to respond to God without God regenerating man first, or when Total Depravity is used to support the idea of irresistible grace.

That is where the term goes beyond the scope of scripture, IMO. Nowhere do we find that man is created unable to respond to the Gospel.



If you only want to say that Total Depravity = Utterly Sinful and in need of a savior (which I think the verses you have cited would support), then we can all be in agreement about that.

[rhutchin]

The problem is when the term Total Depravity is used to mean that man is unable to respond to God without God regenerating man first, or when Total Depravity is used to support the idea of irresistible grace.

That is where the term goes beyond the scope of scripture, IMO. Nowhere do we find that man is created unable to respond to the Gospel.

To what would the unbeliever respond? In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul writes, "...we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;..." What response should we expect from those who think the preaching of Christ crucified to be foolishness? How should we expect those for whom it is a stumbling block to respond?

Even the Arminians concede that God must act to enable such people to respond. Only the liberals seem to deny that God must take the first step.

So, are you liberal on this point or will you seek to establish conservative credentials?

[Phat8594]

To what would the unbeliever respond?

The Gospel.

What response should we expect from those who think the preaching of Christ crucified to be foolishness? How should we expect those for whom it is a stumbling block to respond?

18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Its a matter of fact. Those who have rejected and are rejecting the gospel are the ones described as the ones who see the gospel as foolishness. Nothing that says they can not respond in another way...just that they have responded in a certain way...and thus the gospel has become a stumbling block to them.

Even the Arminians concede that God must act to enable such people to respond. Only the liberals seem to deny that God must take the first step.

Seeing how man responds to God, it is clear that God takes the first step. Without God's action, man would not seek out God on his own.

[rhutchin]

Seeing how man responds to God, it is clear that God takes the first step. Without God's action, man would not seek out God on his own.

So, what action do you say God takes that then allows a person to respond to the gospel?

[Phat8594]

So, what action do you say God takes that then allows a person to respond to the gospel?

Well words cannot fully describe what God does....but to start:

God created man with the ability to respond and the ability to make decisions

Christ dies for the sins of the world.

God offers salvation to all those who believe.

Without God's offer, or God's creative attributes that He gave to man, or without Christ's death and resurrection man could not respond.

[rhutchin]

So, what action do you say God takes that then allows a person to respond to the gospel?

Well words cannot fully describe what God does....but to start:

God created man with the ability to respond and the ability to make decisions

Christ dies for the sins of the world.

God offers salvation to all those who believe.

Without God's offer, or God's creative attributes that He gave to man, or without Christ's death and resurrection man could not respond.

According to 1 Corinth, these things are foolishness to the Greek and a stumbling block to Jews. While they allow a person to respond to the gospel, that response is obviously negative.

I guess the real question is, "What action do you say God takes that then elicits a positive respond to the gospel from a person?

[Phat8594]

According to 1 Corinth, these things are foolishness to the Greek and a stumbling block to Jews. While they allow a person to respond to the gospel, that response is obviously negative.

1 Corinthians is obviously speaking in general. It's merely a statement of fact that those who reject the gospel consider it foolishness, while those who accept it see it for what it is, the power of God to save. This passage sets up the juxtaposition of God's wisdom verses man's wisdom. Man's wisdom is limited and does not save, while God's wisdom does.

Would you not agree that those who have rejected the gospel see Christianity and all that it entails as foolishness?


Of course, it should be evident that Paul is not saying that unless you are regenerated you can not or will not accept the Gospel. To say that he is, is to impose your own theology upon the text, rather than derive your theology from the text itself.

I guess the real question is, "What action do you say God takes that then elicits a positive respond to the gospel from a person?

There is a lot God does.....He offers salvation to all those who will believe....He makes Himself evident...He convicts us of our sin...etc...etc.

But nowhere does the Bible say that we need to be regenerated before we can or will accept the gospel. That idea stems by necessity from a man-made theology, rather than clear communication of scripture.

[Phat8594]

I guess the real question is, "What action do you say God takes that then elicits a positive respond to the gospel from a person?

Shouldn't the real question be what does the Bible say God does?

And if so...where in the Bible do you see God regenerating man prior to belief?

[Trusty]

I think I am with George that "depravity" is not the right word, at least not anymore. In older centuries, I am sure the (English) word inferred something slightly different. Many Calvinists recognize this, which is why they soften the explanation in defining what they mean by "Total Depravity" even though they remain faithful to tradition by using the phrase. However, it is the total inability to repent and believe aspect where the main difference lies between those who espouse Calvinism and those who do not.

Nowhere does the Bible say that people do not have the ability to repent and believe the Gospel. THAT, by the way, is a statement that CAN stand on its own, as a separate and distinct issue from affirming the NECESSITY of the Holy Spirit testifying to the truth of the Gospel and convicting the world of sin alongside the presentation of the Gospel...i.e. prevenient grace (John 15:26-27, 16:8-10, the book of Acts, Ephesians, etc...) which no one but Pelagians deny is necessary. Those who do not espouse Calvinism have no problem calling this work of the Spirit "grace". But there again, "grace" tends to be a word which is over-embellished in Calvinist circles in the following ways, and it smacks of "grace idolatry".

1. Grace itself is treated like an acting agent, and when speaking on the work of the Spirit is replaced altogether by the word "grace", it is not good at all. This indeed happens, and most honest Calvinists realize it once it is pointed out to them.

2. Grace itself is construed as a metaphysical pixie dust. There is nothing in the definition or concept of "grace" in the Ancient Near East that endows grace, divine or otherwise, with any power in itself. Grace is the extension of a benefaction. Nothing more. Talks as if it is something else entirely idolizes grace rather than worshiping the Triune God that extends the grace and does the work.

In any case, grace is definitely monergistically extended by any patron, divine or otherwise (the unmerited bit), but the concept of grace as a function of reciprocity in those relationships do not entail irresistibility (a categorical error) on the part of the would-be recipients, nor does the concept of grace entail a metaphysical pixie dust that does something to transform a recipient in such a way that magically generates a favorably response as opposed to a negative one (Acts 7 clearly debunks such notions of this anyway). It is the Holy Spirit, whose work I have no problem calling a "grace", but let's not go beyond the Biblical data about grace itself or how the Holy Spirit operates. If non-believers can resist the Spirit (Acts 7:51), and even believers can grieve and quench the Spirit (Eph. 4:30, 1 Thes. 5:19), let us respect the Spirit's inspired words and not think that some embellished, abstract, private meaning of "grace", that is so often used in Calvinist circles rather then the Spirit Himself, contains properties the Bible inspired by the Spirit clearly suggests it doesn't. Never a good idea to think one knows better than God.

Again, if God set up soteriology and human anthropology in this way, that is His sovereign right to do so.

The problem that many Calvinists have is not understanding that God is most glorified when believers teach salvation the way He made things operate in both His actions and man's actions, not how Calvinists want things to operate. If it is the case that God does not monergistically implant the responses, but people are free to reject or accept the Gospel by work of the Spirit (a grace of God), then it does no good for the Calvinist to embellish words and concepts like grace completely foreign to anything Biblical authors were talking about (that their audience would understand), and impose non-Biblical schemes like "irresistible grace" and "regeneration precedes faith" even when the Calvinist thinks he or she is trying to give the most amount of glory to God in salvation.

If God set it up differently, then the best way to glorify God in the salvation of sinners is to explain it the way the Bible does, not the Calvinist theology does.

So when those who do not espouse Calvinism critique it and request Biblical support for those ideas, it isn't because anyone wants to diminish God's glory, sovereignty, etc. But it comes from wanting to be faithful to the Scriptures God breathed out for us.

I have no problems with Calvinists citing their proofs, but it is the explanations and conjecture about what they think the texts are saying is where the problem lies. The Bible verses are what is Biblical, we just think Calvinist opinions about their meaning are not.

Unless and until Calvinism can be explained from the texts that actually agrees with the texts usually brought up, then I will continue to reject it. Show me where Paul and First Century illiterate peasants in the Near East thought in 16th century categories, with over-embellished theological definitions of "Bible words" and I may listen.

In fact, the over-embellishment of theology and private theological definitions is where eisegesis begins. There are very few words, especially in the NT, that could be argued to have technical "private" definitions. Paul's use of Kaleo (call) in certain passages (not every time he uses it though) comes to mind as one, for instance, but even with that one, it doesn't mean "to summon", as is often taught, nor can an "out loud summons" be used for an "inward, effectual call". Abasciano and Klein have clearly and in my opinion irrefutably demonstrated that Paul's technical meaning is "designate/name" anyway...so all the talk of outward/inward/general/effectual calling etc. is gratuitous, embellished, and superfluous.

I don't reject Calvinist soteriology just because I don't like it, though some of the implications of it I don't like. For instance, I don't like the implications that come from the deterministic and compatibilstic forms of Calvinism that smack of Epicurean, Gnostic, pantheism, or Essene thinking. I also think that determinism being embedded in the word sovereignty actually diminishes God's sovereignty (and butchers the meaning of the word with foreign philosophical concepts nowhere found in the definition) and presents a very low view of God's sovereignty. Calvinists present us with a God incapable of doing anything unless he meticulously authors everything. and that if God did not actively and meticulously decree to impose upon me the selection of fries over onion rings at Burger King rather than simply foreknowing my free choice and concurring (permitting) it, then God has no power whatsoever. This strikes me as a wimpy God with no sovereignty whatsoever. Another example where Calvinism actually diminishes that which they try to magnify...typical of Calvinism thinking). All this before the charge that God is the author of all sin and evil,which is a necessary consequence of theistic determinism, and has been shown again and again despite protests (mere assertions with zero logical comprehensibility) to the contrary. Thankfully, people are rejecting determinism and also starting to realize how "knowledgeable" God's omniscience really is, and how wise God really is, and are thus rejecting both determinism and compatibilism, especially since it is an affront to His aseity, since according to Calvinism, God must eternally do something (foreordain is an action) in order to eternally know something (omniscience is an attribute that makes God who He is, regardless of any action taken in eternity).

I do think Calvinism is the product that the early Reformers invented given the limited knowledge they had and the categories of thought they operated in at the time, but it just doesn't square with Scripture given the knowledge we have now, or the errors that Arminius exposed and refuted back then, and too much of it was overreacted embellishment against the abuses of Rome's requirements and emphasis on man.

Arminius showed the way back to the Early church with his newly found freedom in the Reformation to study. Modern Scholarship has confirmed and strengthened his case, Even though most Calvinists don't, they ought to read him, and modern, non-Calvinist scholarship. As a pastor who reads both Reformed and non-Reformed commentaries and other literature (because I am not one who says Refromed folks are wrong about everything), there is definitely a huge difference in materials, and the work of Reformed folks is definitely more "sheltered" from most other evangelical scholarship (and I don't mean "liberal" scholarship), and a good chunk of Reformed commentaries ignore 1st century sociology and anthropology data altogether, and when they do engage in it (Schreiner tries in his Romans Baker commentary, or Clinton Arnold in his Ephesians commentary, for examples), the results are almost embarrassing. It is striking the differences, and it can come across "cultish" at times with the private language and meaning problem.

Seriously, Calvinism just needs to hang it up...I realize the popularity of the neo-Calvinism only has about three or four years left in the tank, but I hate that it will wane because of personalities of it's celebrity proponents are getting out of hand that it will soon be turning more people off of it, rather than the masses actually engaging serious Biblical study to see it refuted because of its errors. Oh well, no need to despair, soon enough, we'll all have massively popular neo-Arminian nonsense to refute as well when the fickle pendulum of American Evangelicalism sits on swings back around...

[George Blaisdell]

To what would the unbeliever respond? In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul writes, "...we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;..." What response should we expect from those who think the preaching of Christ crucified to be foolishness? How should we expect those for whom it is a stumbling block to respond?

Even the Arminians concede that God must act to enable such people to respond. Only the liberals seem to deny that God must take the first step.

So, are you liberal on this point or will you seek to establish conservative credentials?

Sigh...

A.

[FarEastBird]

Shouldn't the real question be what does the Bible say God does?

And if so...where in the Bible do you see God regenerating man prior to belief?

Heb 11:6

You cannot please God without faith, and faith is given itself of God.

Rom 10:1-3
The Jews even have "zeal" of God, but without their understanding, which is the faith "of" Christ, they failed to establish their righteosness.


FEB

[George Blaisdell]

Heb 11:6

You cannot please God without faith, and faith is given itself of God.

How do you get the above from this: ???

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.

This clearly shows what man must do, and that in response to this, God is the Rewarder...

Arsenios