Total Depraved vs. Righteousness of man

[Ormly]

There are a few ongoing threads on righteousness. I was asked and thought it appropiate to try to bring it all under one heading for the better sorting out what perhaps the real obstacles to our understanding are. I hope we can leave "tulip" in the garden where it belongs and be object in this. Lets try to be clear as we express ourselves and take advantage of the this platform to do so, searching the scriptures accurately to support what we believe. I believe, and use as rule, all scripture must reconcile with itself. When we are inclined to say: "It's a mystery" know that you are in trouble when trying to connect the dots. They, aside from the book of Revelations, can be connected with little difficulty provided agenda doesn't get in the way.

I open with this I previously posted in another thread:

What needs to be rectified in our thinking is that man, intoto, is NOT total depraved. He is, however, incapable of saving himself unto salvation with God eternally. But he is totally capable of following instructions dicated to him by the law of his created independent conscience. That ability was never was taken from him; just now made more difficult because his sensibilities have been altered that they now are subjected to an influence from outside himself never intended for him to take into himself. This transgression corrupted his human nature that it is now disqualified since sin can be found in it. This corrupted nature was left to do battle with an enemy who already defeated him. BUT by the fact he was doing battle would indicate clearly that there was one, revealing a conscience that could make distinctions....or else why would there ever be battle between right and wrong, good and evil? {John 1.9}

You be the Judge. What was man left with God that could still bless him in? ..and why? Compare the actions of Cain and Abel since they are earliest accounts of "fallen" human endeavor.

rm ........Happy and a prosperous discussion to all

[rhutchin]

There are a few ongoing threads on righteousness. I was asked and thought it appropiate to try to bring it all under one heading for the better sorting out what perhaps the real obstacles to our understanding are. I hope we can leave "tulip" in the garden where it belongs and be object in this. Lets try to be clear as we express ourselves and take advantage of the this platform to do so, searching the scriptures accurately to support what we believe. I believe, and use as rule, all scripture must reconcile with itself. When we are inclined to say: "It's a mystery" know that you are in trouble when trying to connect the dots. They, aside from the book of Revelations, can be connected with little difficulty provided agenda doesn't get in the way.

I open with this I previously posted in another thread:

What needs to be rectified in our thinking is that man, intoto, is NOT total depraved. He is, however, incapable of saving himself unto salvation with God eternally. But he is totally capable of following instructions dicated to him by the law of his created independent conscience. That ability was never was taken from him; just now made more difficult because his sensibilities have been altered that they now are subjected to an influence from outside himself never intended for him to take into himself. This transgression corrupted his human nature that it is now disqualified since sin can be found in it. This corrupted nature was left to do battle with an enemy who already defeated him. BUT by the fact he was doing battle would indicate clearly that there was one, revealing a conscience that could make distinctions....or else why would there ever be battle between right and wrong, good and evil? {John 1.9}

You be the Judge. What was man left with God that could still bless him in? ..and why? Compare the actions of Cain and Abel since they are earliest accounts of "fallen" human endeavor.

rm ........Happy and a prosperous discussion to all

Let's start with Romans 3 and answer the question -- Is this an accurate description of each and every person relative to any innate righteousness that they might possess or to any righteousness that they might attain through the performance of certain works?

Romans 3
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,
11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 ruin and misery are in their paths,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

If this is not an accurate description of each and every person, are there other Scriptures that provide an accurate and explicit description of people?

[Ormly]

Let's start with Romans 3 and answer the question -- Is this an accurate description of each and every person relative to any innate righteousness that they might possess or to any righteousness that they might attain through the performance of certain works?

Romans 3
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,
11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 ruin and misery are in their paths,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

If this is not an accurate description of each and every person, are there other Scriptures that provide an accurate and explicit description of people?

No, it is not a fair scripture to use in the sense it is mis-used and twisted for agenda's sake.. So lets see some reason why Paul is using a quote from Isaiah to support what he is meaning to get across to his listening audience.

First, those in Isaiah were getting ready to march into excile for their rebellion and disobedience so that makes a good backdrop for why Paul states what he states.. Second it should be obvious from vs. 9 he is NOT speaking of ALL humanity and their "sins", that are forgivable, but of the consequences of the ONE SIN, Adam's, that only Christ can only remove and it STAY removed. That SIN contains within it all that Paul speaks of which does condemn ALL men. All evil and sin of every kind is contained within the nature of that one sin, therefore all have sinned and require God's justification awaiting salvation/peace with God through Jesus if one lived before the cross. But now since the cross justification and salvation can be the same time because Jesus has accomplished it. "It is finished, He said" [Romans 5.1]

Does that help?

rm

[Chappie]

Let's start with Romans 3 and answer the question -- Is this an accurate description of each and every person relative to any innate righteousness that they might possess or to any righteousness that they might attain through the performance of certain works?

Romans 3
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,
11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 ruin and misery are in their paths,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

If this is not an accurate description of each and every person, are there other Scriptures that provide an accurate and explicit description of people?

I am inclined to agree with Ormly on this one to a great extent. Men do suffer from a debilitating depravity, but total depravity... NO...

The passages posted above are true, but must be mediated and reconciled with reality and the rest of scripture. The passages above express the condition of man in relation to his creator. Try and imagine a reality where every passage posted above was literally true 24/7, 365 days a year.

There is no one who understands what? Does not even the worst among us show some evidence of kindness from time to time? Out of even the worst sinner, is every word uttered a deception? Who curses and is bitter all the time? If every man and woman was running around killing all the time, there would be no one left… All scripture must be reconciled with scripture and reality. Not being totally depraved does not result in one being righteous.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Let's start with Romans 3 and answer the question -- Is this an accurate description of each and every person relative to any innate righteousness that they might possess or to any righteousness that they might attain through the performance of certain works?

Romans 3
10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one,
11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 ruin and misery are in their paths,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

If this is not an accurate description of each and every person, are there other Scriptures that provide an accurate and explicit description of people?

Ormly
No, it is not a fair scripture to use in the sense it is mis-used and twisted for agenda's sake.. So lets see some reason why Paul is using a quote from Isaiah to support what he is meaning to get across to his listening audience.

First, those in Isaiah were getting ready to march into excile for their rebellion and disobedience so that makes a good backdrop for why Paul states what he states.. Second it should be obvious from vs. 9 he is NOT speaking of ALL humanity and their "sins", that are forgivable, but of the consequences of the ONE SIN, Adam's, that only Christ can only remove and it STAY removed. That SIN contains within it all that Paul speaks of which does condemn ALL men. All evil and sin of every kind is contained within the nature of that one sin, therefore all have sinned and require God's justification awaiting salvation/peace with God through Jesus if one lived before the cross. But now since the cross justification and salvation can be the same time because Jesus has accomplished it. "It is finished, He said" [Romans 5.1]

Does that help?

rm

How about a little more info. What is the citation in Isaiah to which you are referring?

The intro from v9 is--
Romans 3
9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin,
10 just as it is written:...

How is it obvious from this verse, that "he is NOT speaking of ALL humanity and their "sins", that are forgivable, but of the consequences of the ONE SIN, Adam's, that only Christ can only remove and it STAY removed." What do you see as Paul's argument here?

Are you saying that "under sin" refers to Adam's sin? What does Paul's following citation, “There is no one righteous,..." have to do with this? You do not appear to be drawing the conclusion that Adam's sin produces this effect, so what is Paul's point in citing this passage in support of his argument?

[rhutchin]

I am inclined to agree with Ormly on this one to a great extent. Men do suffer from a debilitating depravity, but total depravity... NO...

The passages posted above are true, but must be mediated and reconciled with reality and the rest of scripture. The passages above express the condition of man in relation to his creator. Try and imagine a reality where every passage posted above was literally true 24/7, 365 days a year.

There is no one who understands what? Does not even the worst among us show some evidence of kindness from time to time? Out of even the worst sinner, is every word uttered a deception? Who curses and is bitter all the time? If every man and woman was running around killing all the time, there would be no one left… All scripture must be reconciled with scripture and reality. Not being totally depraved does not result in one being righteous.

The issue then is not whether man is depraved but the extent of that depravity. Actually, it may turn on the definition of depravity. What if we define depravity as the absence of righteousness and total depravity as the total absence of righteousness (essentially saying the same thing).

Take your question, Does not even the worst among us show some evidence of kindness from time to time? Even Christ said that parents know how to give good gifts to their children. Yet, would not such righteousness still be as filthy rags and not really kindness at all except under the leniency of human understanding? Do we humans truly perceive reality or only that reality that we want to see?

[Ormly]

The issue then is not whether man is depraved but the extent of that depravity. Actually, it may turn on the definition of depravity. What if we define depravity as the absence of righteousness and total depravity as the total absence of righteousness (essentially saying the same thing).

Take your question, Does not even the worst among us show some evidence of kindness from time to time? Even Christ said that parents know how to give good gifts to their children. Yet, would not such righteousness still be as filthy rags and not really kindness at all except under the leniency of human understanding? Do we humans truly perceive reality or only that reality that we want to see?

It is only "filthy rags" as it applies to atonement. We ALL [no pun intended] know that we can't save ourselves so lets get off that issue so no one accuses the other some heresy. BUT man, before Jesus' finished work on the cross could be justified by his own faith in [a] God unto a righteousness that set him aside from damnation awaiting the day of his resurrection by Jesus..That was the first resurrection which brings us back to the question of man's awareness and capabilities unto righteousness.

The extent of man's depravity, as I see it, can be compared to his rejection of the reality of God, whether he be a native S.A. Indian or a Greek-Hebrew, "Marcus Borg" intellect. Makes sense?

rm

[rhutchin]

...

The extent of man's depravity, as I see it, can be compared to his rejection of the reality of God, whether he be a native S.A. Indian or a Greek-Hebrew, "Marcus Borg" intellect. Makes sense?

rm

Not just the rejection of the reality of God, but the rejection of God. God requires that one actively acknowledge Him and obey His laws. One may be depraved in the natural sense by doing really weird things, but to be depraved in the Scriptural sense relates to the rejection of God even if that rejection is characterized by indifference as opposed to outright hostility. Maybe Total Depravity is the contrived acceptance of God in order to take advantage of others and satisfy one's selfish desires (e.g., those who cry, Lord, Lord,... at the judgment).

[Solly]

Are some people still refusing to accept that the theological definition of the term depravity is not to be found in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, and that conflating the common or garden use of the term - indicating extreme negative moral behaviour - with the theological term - meaning debased, or corrupted, as a pure chemical or a computer programme might be, and which will lead to bad behaviour of various kinds - is just argument from outrage?

Council of Orange

The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin.

As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. The Council held to Augustine's view and repudiated Pelagius. The following canons greatly influenced the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity.

The Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. 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.

© source where applicable

AD 529. Hopefully that is far enough back to avoid falling into the Arminian/Calvinist controversy, but certainly it is a text that Classic Jacobite/Weslyan Arminians would accept, as well as Calvinists, on the effects of sin, and loss of righteousness before God. Obviously for 'baptismal regeneration' one needs to read 'Spiritual regenration', but the learned can make that mental change, I am sure.

[Ormly]

AD 529. Hopefully that is far enough back to avoid falling into the Arminian/Calvinist controversy, but certainly it is a text that Classic Jacobite/Weslyan Arminians would accept, as well as Calvinists, on the effects of sin, and loss of righteousness before God. Obviously for 'baptismal regeneration' one needs to read 'Spiritual regenration', but the learned can make that mental change, I am sure.

Thanks for posting that, Solly. I often wondered what it was people were accusing me of and what I actually believed. I see now there is quite a difference that reinforces me in my walk.

It must be kept in mind with any of these councils that they are not the gospel but a result of man searching the gospels [hopefully without agenda] from which he draws his conclusions. Never should these councils be looked upon as the inspired word of God as the Reformed and the RCC have been want to do.

rm

[Solly]

It must be kept in mind with any of these councils that they are not the gospel but a result of man searching the gospels [hopefully without agenda] from which he draws his conclusions. Never should these councils be looked upon as the inspired word of God as the Reformed and the RCC have been want to do.

that goes without saying; but the level of thought that has gone into this document far outweighs a TWeb thread, you'll have to admit. I am all for hearing what those who have gone before have discovered in God's word, and how it should be used.

[quote]Thanks for posting that, Solly. I often wondered what it was people were accusing me of and what I actually believed. I see now there is quite a difference that reinforces me in my walk.
As long as you are not falling for Pelagianism, then there is hope for you yet. If there was another word that could stand duty for 'depravity' then I would use it, if we agreed on what it meant. I still think there is more heat than light in this, because of the way the word is used today.
If you accept that sin has affected every part of our being - body, mind and soul; intellective, affective, and volitional; if you accept that we have no rightousness before God; if you accept that sin is rebellion, and we are all rebels against God; if you accept that a spiritual work from God is required before one turns to Christ and believes - be it prevenient or efficacious - then we are singing from the same hymn sheet.
is God pleased with the actions of unbelievers? Not in the way he is pleased with those in Christ. They may further his plans, they may accord with his will, but not for the right reasons. Open the door of the argument which says a human being can in themselves do something that pleases God, and you are on your way out of Biblical Christianity. The issue is not whether humans can act morally, even in accord with the revelation of God's law in the bible, but why they do it. The doctrine of Total Depravity says no one seeks to please God, whatever kind of life they are living, until God turns them to him.

Another historical document:

39 Articles, Church of England

XIII. Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

© source where applicable

Notice how I am avoiding explicit Calvinistic documents.

[Solly]

Articles, United Methodist Church

Article VII—Of Original or Birth Sin

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.

Article VIII—Of Free Will

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

© source where applicable

[Solly]

The Evangelical United Brethren Church

Article VII—Sin and Free Will

We believe man is fallen from righteousness and, apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is destitute of holiness and inclined to evil. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. In his own strength, without divine grace, man cannot do good works pleasing and acceptable to God. We believe, however, man influenced and empowered by the Holy Spirit is responsible in freedom to exercise his will for good.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2000. Copyright 2000 by The United Methodist Publishing House.

© source where applicable

[rhutchin]

AD 529. Hopefully that is far enough back to avoid falling into the Arminian/Calvinist controversy, but certainly it is a text that Classic Jacobite/Weslyan Arminians would accept, as well as Calvinists, on the effects of sin, and loss of righteousness before God. Obviously for 'baptismal regeneration' one needs to read 'Spiritual regenration', but the learned can make that mental change, I am sure.

Thanks for posting that, Solly. I often wondered what it was people were accusing me of and what I actually believed. I see now there is quite a difference that reinforces me in my walk.

It must be kept in mind with any of these councils that they are not the gospel but a result of man searching the gospels [hopefully without agenda] from which he draws his conclusions. Never should these councils be looked upon as the inspired word of God as the Reformed and the RCC have been want to do.

rm

Your earlier statement was--

What needs to be rectified in our thinking is that man, intoto, is NOT total depraved. He is, however, incapable of saving himself unto salvation with God eternally. But he is totally capable of following instructions dicated to him by the law of his created independent conscience. That ability was never was taken from him; just now made more difficult because his sensibilities have been altered that they now are subjected to an influence from outside himself never intended for him to take into himself. This transgression corrupted his human nature that it is now disqualified since sin can be found in it. This corrupted nature was left to do battle with an enemy who already defeated him. BUT by the fact he was doing battle would indicate clearly that there was one, revealing a conscience that could make distinctions....or else why would there ever be battle between right and wrong, good and evil? {John 1.9}

Would you modify that position based on what Solly has presented?

[Solly]

And now Reformed comment:

Douglas Wilson

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/ant...n2_record.html
Biblical Terminology
What is the condition of man prior to regeneration? How may we best describe him? The best place to start is with the Biblical description and the Biblical terms. When the Lord showed the prophet Ezekiel the valley of dry bones, He said, "`Son of man, can these bones live?' So I answered, `O Lord God, You know.' Again He said to me, `Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!' Thus says the Lord God to these bones: `Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live'" (Ezek. 37:3-5).

Before regeneration, we are nothing but dry bones. Unregenerate man is dead in his transgression and sin (Eph. 2:1-2; Col. 23). He is not sick, he is not ailing; he is dead. Now to say that he is dead in this respect is not to assert that he is physically dead, or dead in every aspect of his being. It simply means that he is dead with regard to spiritual things. He has no connection with the life of the Spirit,which comes only as a gift from God. Because man is dead, he must be born again (John 3:5-7). Because he is dead in sin, he is hostile to God and will not submit to His laws. Even further, he cannot submit to His laws (Rom. 8:7-8). The natural man is incapable of understanding spiritual things, and since the gospel is in the front rank of spiritual things which require spiritual understanding, this means the natural man has no ability to comprehend the gospel ( I Cor. 2:14).

Someone may object here and say that the gospel was designed for unregenerate men; how can we say that unregenerate men cannot understand it? In reply, I agree that the gospel was designed for unregenerate men, but I deny that it was intended to function apart from the resurrection given by the Spirit of God. Unless regeneration occurs, the gospel, like all spiritual things, remains gibberish to the natural man. As Paul says in I Corinthians 1:18, "...the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (also see II Cor. 2:15 and 4:3). Note what is foolish to him; it is the message of the cross.

Because man is in this condition, he cannot come to Christ unless he is drawn by the Father (John 6:44,65), by means of the Spirit (John 3:5-8). This means that a Biblical evangelist must preach, like Ezekiel, in a graveyard. He is not preaching in a hospital ward, trying to get the patients to take the medicine. Those who preach the gospel are not recruiters; they are heralds and instruments of a God-given resurrection. In accomplishing this, the dead men do not cooperate in their resurrection. The dead men have something they must do (repent and believe), but they do not do it until they are given life.

Another picture used by the Scripture to communicate this truth is the picture of slavery. Just as a dead man is not free to walk about, so a slave is not free to walk off. Jesus teaches us that everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Paul reminds the Roman Christians that they were at one time slaves to sin and free from the control of righteousness (Rom. 6:20). In Titus 3:3, he says that we were all at one time foolish and slaves to various passions. Unlike physical slavery, it is impossible to escape from this bondage since the slavemaster is our own twisted nature -- our own passions and lusts. Wherever we go, there we are.

Theological Terminology

In discussions such as this, extra-Biblical theological terminology is both a blessing and a hindrance. It is a blessing because it enables us to pin down our definitions with better precision. This is necessary because there are many evangelical Christians who are not willing to submit to certain truths of Scripture, but they are constrained to agree with the phrases of Scripture. So they would agree, for example, that man is dead in his sins because Ephesians says so. But they would then hasten to add that "dead" doesn't mean dead and that we mustn't press such figures of speech too far. As such a discussion progresses, the defender of Biblical truth is constrained to use other words and phrases that will communicate the Scriptural concept.

The hindrance lies in the fact that such extra-Biblical phrases are not inspired and may not always communicate effectively. For example, the doctrine of the total depravity of man sounds like we are asserting the absolute depravity of man, i.e. that man is as bad as he could possibly be. This is quite obviously false. Man is constrained and held back from such an absolute depravity by the common grace of God.

The doctrine of total depravity is this: man is totally unable to contribute to his own salvation in any way, because he is dead in his sins. For example, the resurrection of Lazarus was not a joint effort between Christ and Lazarus. Lazarus came forth because he was raised, not in order to be raised.

What Denial Involves

The denial of man's total inability will ultimately undermine our faith in the necessity of the new birth and the evangelical proclamation. How so?

Scripture teaches us that faith is pleasing to God. It also teaches us that we are to live our Christian lives the same way we began our Christian lives (Gal. 3:1-6; Col. 2:6). Now if unregenerate men, on their own, are capable of saving faith, without having been regenerated by the Spirit of God, then they should be able to continue to exercise that same kind of faith, after they are saved, without any help from the Spirit of God.

If a man can become a believer on his own, then he can continue to believe on his own. And if he can continue to believe on his own, then what did regeneration accomplish? The Bible teaches us that the Christian life begins with faith, continues in faith, and concludes in faith (Romans 1:17). The foundation of all godliness is faith, and a denial of man's total inability means that unbelievers are capable of laying that foundation for all godliness on their own. Even if one argues that the Holy Spirit regenerates a man after he believes, such a regeneration is superfluous. What is it for? What does it do? In this view, it most certainly does not enable the man to believe or trust God. It hardly does honor to the resurrecting Spirit to say that His job is to tag along.

The apostle Paul rebuked the Galatians when they forgot that they began by hearing with faith and then sought to finish the job by human effort. In considering his response to that error, I doubt he would have thought much of the confusion that reverses the order -- beginning by human effort and then finishing by the Spirit.

Put bluntly, it amounts to this: If I am saved, sanctified, and glorified through faith (which the Bible teaches), and faith is possible apart from regeneration (which a denial of total inability asserts), then salvation, sanctification, and glorification are possible without regeneration. And that reasoning undermines the necessity of the everlasting and eternal gospel.

Carts and Horses

God gives eyes, and then we see. God gives life, and then we live. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:6).

Contrast this Biblical way of thinking with the alternative. I saw, and so God gave me eyes. I came alive, and so God gave me a resurrection. Light came forth from my heart, so God said, "Let there be light." This is obviously incorrect; it is God, Paul says, who commanded light to come out of darkness. It is God who commanded that it shine in our hearts.

Notice the comparison in this passage between the gift of new life and the creation of the material universe. It bears mentioning that the material creation was ex nihilo -- from nothing. Paul asserts the same about the new creation; it too is from nothing.

The creation does not help the Creator out in the work of creation; the Creator acts unilaterally. The dilemma for evangelicals who want to deny total inability is this: either God must begin the resurrecting work of salvation because unsaved men are dead, or unsaved men are capable of beginning the process of their salvation on their own by means of saving faith. If the former, then we say welcome and shake hands. If the latter, then it follows that unsaved men can finish what they began, and we are confronted with a false gospel. In other words, there is no consistent stopping place between Reformed theology on the one hand, and a Pelagian theology on the other. Of course, plenty of evangelicals do not wind up in one camp or the other, but that is to be considered a triumph of inconsistency.

Conclusion

The Bible does not permit us to boast in our salvation at all: "You are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God -- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption -- that, as it is written, `He who glories, let him glory in the Lord'" (I Corinthians 1:30-31).

If a man has been raised from the dead, there is much cause for rejoicing; there is no cause for pride. And when all human boasting is removed, what remains? Nothing of ours, but there is an infinite ocean of grace. My earnest hope and prayer is that more and more Christians will set out on that ocean, until there is no land in sight.

© source where applicable