How wrong is a wrong view of man?

[GoBahnsen]

Lately here on Tweb we have been hitting a real nerve. Infide and others take a view of man that is quite different than that of Luther and the Reformers. I have heard it said more than once, that one of the most basic presuppositions that one's theology is worked out from, is that of the doctrine of original sin.

Just how bad off is man anyway? All Christians believe man is made in the image of God, but to what extent that image has been marred, is a subject of intense debate. Some may think that the Reformed view is that THAT image has been destroyed. This is not so, it has only been marred.

I hold to total depravity, as taught by the Reformers, and as such I don't hold to "utter depravity". Utter... meaning that men are as bad and evil as they possibly can be. No, the world has yet to see utter depravity, but we have seen just how low some men can get and it is shocking indeed.

But how wrong is a wrong view of man? How much does it color and distort one's whole theological outlook? I hope this thread can explore that, because the Reformed thinkers here and the non Reformed, are very divided on this topic. I guess it mainly has to do with culpability.

People reason that if such doctrines as original sin, with it's resulting sinful nature, are really true, then how does God find men guilty for only acting according to their natures? It is a good question.

We can ask ourselves: why do all humans, without exception (as far as we know) end up sinning? Even John the Baptist had need of God's forgiveness, but why? If we sin because we are born sinners by nature, then why does God still find fault?


So then, why are sinners guilty for acting like sinners? And if we think of ourselves as being neutral to sin and holiness, with the real ability to simply choose one or the other, how does that color our theology?

My own view is that man is a fallen creature. He has a God given conscience and a certain power to follow that conscience for good or for evil. Yet, even as my own childhood experience reminds me, there is a monster inside of me. I am on the one hand a noble creature endowed with a knowledge of right and wrong, sensing that I ought to choose right over wrong, but there is also within me a beast of somekind, who given the right opportunity, might seem to surprise me with his cruelty and perversion.

Enough said for this OP. I'll wait to interact more with those interested in the subject. Thanks for reading, GB

Edit in: One more thought on the subject: how much has today's drift away from interest in theology to the "science" of psychology, affected the average Christian? We have been bombarded with the notion that we must build up our self-esteem in order to live healthy lives. To what extent has this underminded the often dismal picture of fallen man we find portrayed in Scripture? It's very fashionable to talk man up, rather than talk him down. And I have found on this board, a real comradery amongst the non Reformed of various stripes, in a unified desire to "affirm" some kind of goodness about man, and a lack of stomach to speak of the heart of man being evil and desperately wicked. Could it be that even this desire arises out of wickedness? There...now I've made someone angry, maybe they will post.

[7thangel]

Just how bad off is man anyway?

Too bad that he doesn't even know he's bad.

All Christians believe man is made in the image of God,

The bible clearly says that not "all" men are in the image of God. In fact, As Paul said, all men come to and earthly image before becoming in the image of God. And actually, they who are predestined are the only one's who will become in the image of God.

Of God creating man in his image is a misunderstanding of what the true nature of man is. Only the predestined will become in the image of God.

but to what extent that image has been marred, is a subject of intense debate.

The problem is most theologians look at the aftermath when Adam sinned. Yet forget to ask, "Isn't Adam itself originally marred when he committed sin?"

Some may think that the Reformed view is that THAT image has been destroyed. This is not so, it has only been marred. I hold to total depravity, as taught by the Reformers, and as such I don't hold to "utter depravity". Utter... meaning that men are as bad and evil as they possibly can be. No, the world has yet to see utter depravity, but we have seen just how low some men can get and it is shocking indeed.

But have you asked, what is the point of man being marred, when we see Adam,though being perfect, fell to sin?

But how wrong is a wrong view of man?

A wrong view will fail us to recognize our true relationship with God, and ultimately fail to understand God's justness, and of His mercy, and His love towards us.

How much does it color and distort one's whole theological outlook?

The failure to recognize the Godhead, leads to unimaginable actions.

I hope this thread can explore that, because the Reformed thinkers here and the non Reformed, are very divided on this topic. I guess it mainly has to do with culpability. People reason that if such doctrines as original sin, with it's resulting sinful nature, are really true, then how does God find men guilty for only acting according to their natures? It is a good question.

Didn't you read about the evil pharoah? God said, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." And the truth is, all things work together for good only for the Elect.

Why can't we simply believe that in God we live and move and have our being?

We can ask ourselves: why do all humans, without exception (as far as we know) end up sinning?

If christians will deal with the question honestly, they may find the true light of the matter.

Even John the Baptist had need of God's forgiveness, but why?

I do not think you would agree with the answer.

If we sin because we are born sinners by nature, then why does God still find fault? So then, why are sinners guilty for acting like sinners?

Haven't you heard, the Scriptures said, "Blessed are they whose sins are hidden?" Or blessed is the man of whom God does not impute sin? Study when the Scripture stated those words. Did it really mean that sins were not imputed because they have pleased God, or just merely because of God's pure mercy, choosing whomsoever He will to have mercy? And if so, but then why would God not have mercy on all? The truth is, it only those whom God had predestined will receive the blessing of theirs sins not being imputed unto them.

When Paul asked "why does God yet find fault."It is in the connotation that it was God himself who made the vessels unto destruction. Paul's apolgy was:

Romans 9
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


Why can't human believe that he is simply a vessel, and that it is God who makes him to live, and move and have it's being?

Some can't believe it because they were given the heart to be so.

[micah4]

He has a God given conscience and a certain power to follow that conscience for good or for evil.

A "certain" power to? For good or for evil?

I'm very curious about this. Totally depraved is not "Utterly" depraved- okay- but then how much "power" does a man have to choose good or choose evil? Does this mean that an unregenerate man can act righteously? If not, then what power is there to choose good? How can choosing good not be a righteous action? Isn't regeneration necessary under totally depravity to do any righteousness?

I have been told by calvinists that the unregenerate, even if he chooses "good" is certainly choosing good from wrong motivations, would you agree? But then if even his choosing good is evil, then does he really have any "certain power" to follow his conscience for good? And if his acting according to what his conscience informs his is good is actually an evil (because of his unregenerate motivations), then what is not evil? Only to act according to what his conscience tells him is right from right motivations? Then what if his conscience informs him he ought to have right motivations? Then does he still have any "power" to follow that conscience for good or for evil?

I simply don't see how total depravity as Calvinists have presented it to me aligns in any way with your claim that the unregenerate posess any sort of "power" to follow their conscience towards good or evil (and certainly not with respect to the same action if TD is combined with compatibilism).

[GoBahnsen]

A "certain" power to? For good or for evil?

I'm very curious about this. Totally depraved is not "Utterly" depraved- okay- but then how much "power" does a man have to choose good or choose evil? Does this mean that an unregenerate man can act righteously? If not, then what power is there to choose good? How can choosing good not be a righteous action? Isn't regeneration necessary under totally depravity to do any righteousness?

I have been told by calvinists that the unregenerate, even if he chooses "good" is certainly choosing good from wrong motivations, would you agree? But then if even his choosing good is evil, then does he really have any "certain power" to follow his conscience for good? And if his acting according to what his conscience informs his is good is actually an evil (because of his unregenerate motivations), then what is not evil? Only to act according to what his conscience tells him is right from right motivations? Then what if his conscience informs him he ought to have right motivations? Then does he still have any "power" to follow that conscience for good or for evil?

I simply don't see how total depravity as Calvinists have presented it to me aligns in any way with your claim that the unregenerate posess any sort of "power" to follow their conscience towards good or evil (and certainly not with respect to the same action if TD is combined with compatibilism).

Thanks for your post and the sincerity with which it comes across.
When I said a certain power to good or to do evil, I'm speaking of something like what Jesus said "if ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts..."

The thing is, that even man's "good" is flawed by his sin. It is unacceptable to God apart from Christ, the shed blood and grace. So we see righteous men, like Isaiah, having this sudden realization of their "coming short" of God's standard and feeling completely undone in the presense of absolute perfect holiness.

So, when I say good....I don't mean good in the sense of a perfect good, acceptable to God. The unregenerate help little old ladies cross the street as well. That's good, but then the unregenerate does something like, file that work away into his "I'm a good guy folder" and ruins the whole thing. He is want to bring up his work in order to justify himself before God and it all becomes filthy rags.

So yes, there will always be some kind of "self" motive in the good work that the unregenerate does. Most often the appeal is made "it will make YOU feel good if you give, or whatever." So people give to get the feeling for themselves. Of course Christians are hardly free from this, but at least they have come to recognize that they ought not to seek to do good to justify themselves. Therefore they can do the good as unto God and although it won't be perfect, God accepts it through and in Christ alone.

The unregenerate have nothing but a pile of rags in the end. The Christian has put on the Lord Jesus Christ and is clothed in that perfect righteousness because of his faith. It's all of grace though.


Do you you agree with this much? Or where is it that we differ, because we're going to differ, but at least we can work on clarity without trying to convert the other.

[James Peter]

I'm going to avoid commenting on previous poster's opinions and instead just try to answer the questions posed in the original post.

I think that this is one of the key issues that shapes our entire outlook on life. I also think that often we let our own opinions on this carry a little too much weight and when we carry them through to their logical conclusions forget that the premises that the entire system is built on is, at the very least, questionable. I'm not saying that I'm right, in fact I'm pretty sure that I'm not, but I am saying that maybe it would do most people good to be a little less certain especially when the evidence isn't as clear as its often presented.

I believe that the fall fundamentally effected our natures and both released sin into creation and made us captive to sin. I don't believe that we are in any way legally culpable for original sin as individuals though (i.e. if we died and were only 'guilty' of original sin and had not sinned ourselves we would not be guilty). In many ways that is an academic distinction - we are all, by the time we're adolescents at the very latest, guilty of countless acts of selfishness and rebellion.

I don't know how much I should go into my views on salvation and righteousness so i shall just briefly comment that I now understand Calvinism (Calvin's Calvinism that is) much better than I ever have (due to some detailed exploration of the Reformation) and I completely understand why with his view of depravity God has to impute man with righteousness for him to be made righteous (and why that logically then leads to his views on elections and so forth). I don't agree with them because I have a different view of righteousness and sin. I don't claim to understand the mystery of the cross but I do believe that through it Jesus offered redemption to all men and that if we obey the call to 'repent and believe', 'calling on the name of the Lord', we will be saved. I should temper that with the statement that I do believe that it is the Spirit that leads us to the place where we can repent and believe and so perhaps my view isn't really that different and I still have the problem of why some are led and others are not (I just attribute it to something in the nature of the men (whom God created of course) rather than in God rejecting the men because of anything).

What effect does all of this have on me? I believe we are called to love God and love the world (the people rather than the powers of course), to follow the lead of the Spirit and do all that we can to see everyone we can be saved.

[GoBahnsen]

I'm going to avoid commenting on previous poster's opinions and instead just try to answer the questions posed in the original post.

I think that this is one of the key issues that shapes our entire outlook on life. I also think that often we let our own opinions on this carry a little too much weight and when we carry them through to their logical conclusions forget that the premises that the entire system is built on is, at the very least, questionable. I'm not saying that I'm right, in fact I'm pretty sure that I'm not, but I am saying that maybe it would do most people good to be a little less certain especially when the evidence isn't as clear as its often presented.

Good observations

I believe that the fall fundamentally effected our natures and both released sin into creation and made us captive to sin. I don't believe that we are in any way legally culpable for original sin as individuals though (i.e. if we died and were only 'guilty' of original sin and had not sinned ourselves we would not be guilty). In many ways that is an academic distinction - we are all, by the time we're adolescents at the very latest, guilty of countless acts of selfishness and rebellion.

I'm not qualified to improve much upon what you said. I do think that there is probable a "legal" connection of some kind and that even if a person never sinned (IMPOSSIBLE), they would still need to be represented by Jesus in order to be acceptable, because indeed in their flesh dwells no good thing (Romans 7).

I don't know how much I should go into my views on salvation and righteousness so i shall just briefly comment that I now understand Calvinism (Calvin's Calvinism that is) much better than I ever have (due to some detailed exploration of the Reformation) and I completely understand why with his view of depravity God has to impute man with righteousness for him to be made righteous (and why that logically then leads to his views on elections and so forth). I don't agree with them because I have a different view of righteousness and sin. I don't claim to understand the mystery of the cross but I do believe that through it Jesus offered redemption to all men and that if we obey the call to 'repent and believe', 'calling on the name of the Lord', we will be saved.

Your last statement was pretty safe. I think we can be ignorant (and often are) of many deep truths. I get more uncomfortable with the idea of rejecting a deeper truth when it is explained in detail to the hearer. Yet, God is patient with His people, and no doubt often times we reject that which we later come to embrace.

I should temper that with the statement that I do believe that it is the Spirit that leads us to the place where we can repent and believe and so perhaps my view isn't really that different and I still have the problem of why some are led and others are not (I just attribute it to something in the nature of the men (whom God created of course) rather than in God rejecting the men because of anything).

Thanks for your candor

What effect does all of this have on me? I believe we are called to love God and love the world (the people rather than the powers of course), to follow the lead of the Spirit and do all that we can to see everyone we can be saved.

Again, very safe statements.

I would like to repeat again this idea of a "beast" within. Perhaps many people, especially men, might not want to be that transparent, but I think many an honest man has owned up to knowing that something inside of him is sick/perverted. Some of these men have involved themselves in secret degrading sins and yet outwardly maintain a normal appearance. They may be a leader at Church, but inwardly they have developed a perversion and they can't seem to get enough. I'm not speaking for myself, so relax, but I know the potential for such is there, within me.

I remember a time when I was young (I was rather shy, but could be very funny at times) and I threw a rock at a couple of doves that were quite a ways off. The chances of hitting one were extremely slim, but the rock landed on one dove injuring it's wing. I ran towards it, thrilled with my new found, keen hunting ability, and came upon it walking in circles unable to fly. I grabbed a near-by 2 X 4 and proceeded to club the poor bird to death. I recall becoming almost animal-like in my lust for it's blood and death, yet it was totally out of character for me, a boy who liked animals and pets.

As Walter Martin used to say "you don't want to know the real you, and perhaps he was very right on." Just how sinful are we and we don't appreciate the depths of it all? Just look at that brutal death Jesus experienced, that should tell us something about the awful nature of sin, which again, perhaps we kid ourselves into thinking it isn't really all that bad.

[Spokoina]

IMO, I don't think we give enough emphasis to the effects of contradictory nature within us... it frustrates the ability of man to be perfected, to do good consistently even as a saved person, and such a person is in need of a savior.

The fact of contradictory nature, in which evil prevails in us, is the fate of the unsaved. The fact of contradictory nature in which good will prevail is the fate of the saved.

I have not hashed this out fully, but this is a bit of where I go with it.

[Xavier]

Lately here on Tweb we have been hitting a real nerve. Infide and others take a view of man that is quite different than that of Luther and the Reformers. I have heard it said more than once, that one of the most basic presuppositions that one's theology is worked out from, is that of the doctrine of original sin.

Big surprise... The rest of Christendom doesn't believe in original sin as Luther and the Reformers did...

Even the Remonstrants had a disagreement over the doctrine of original sin.

However, I should make it clear that the orthodox Christian position that cannot be violated is depravity. One must be careful not to equate original sin to depravity.

I hold to total depravity, as taught by the Reformers, and as such I don't hold to "utter depravity". Utter... meaning that men are as bad and evil as they possibly can be. No, the world has yet to see utter depravity, but we have seen just how low some men can get and it is shocking indeed.

I would agree with you on that one...

But how wrong is a wrong view of man? How much does it color and distort one's whole theological outlook? I hope this thread can explore that, because the Reformed thinkers here and the non Reformed, are very divided on this topic. I guess it mainly has to do with culpability.

I think it has something to do with culpability and our own personal understandings of justice. But I have some serious exegetical concerns with the Original Sin position (especially the lack of exegesis).

People reason that if such doctrines as original sin, with it's resulting sinful nature, are really true, then how does God find men guilty for only acting according to their natures? It is a good question.

I don't even equate original sin with the inhertence of a sin nature. Original sin is the doctrine that ALL men are held guilty because of Adam's sin.

From Dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com: Entry for Original Sin

original sin n.
In Christian theology, the condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience.

© source where applicable

The Wikipedia entry has more information on the varying definitions of original sin.

We can ask ourselves: why do all humans, without exception (as far as we know) end up sinning?

Because we inherit a sin nature from the world around us, introduced by Adam.

Even John the Baptist had need of God's forgiveness, but why? If we sin because we are born sinners by nature, then why does God still find fault?

Because we chose to sin of our doing... I do not find that God holds us guilty of Adam's sin, but our own.

So then, why are sinners guilty for acting like sinners? And if we think of ourselves as being neutral to sin and holiness, with the real ability to simply choose one or the other, how does that color our theology?

I don't think that anyone would claim that we are neutral. The argument centers around a REAL ability to do the contrary.

It shouldn't colour our theology at all, because theology should depend on exegesis first and systematics second... Not the other way around...

My own view is that man is a fallen creature. He has a God given conscience and a certain power to follow that conscience for good or for evil. Yet, even as my own childhood experience reminds me, there is a monster inside of me. I am on the one hand a noble creature endowed with a knowledge of right and wrong, sensing that I ought to choose right over wrong, but there is also within me a beast of somekind, who given the right opportunity, might seem to surprise me with his cruelty and perversion.

I rather think that our own personal opinion of ourselves colours a lot of Reformed Theology's appeal to Christians today. We want to think of ourselves as so pathetic, namely (I think) as an excuse for prior bad behaviour. You GB are not the only Calvinist who has used this a basis for understanding in theology.

Edit in: One more thought on the subject: how much has today's drift away from interest in theology to the "science" of psychology, affected the average Christian? We have been bombarded with the notion that we must build up our self-esteem in order to live healthy lives. To what extent has this underminded the often dismal picture of fallen man we find portrayed in Scripture? It's very fashionable to talk man up, rather than talk him down. And I have found on this board, a real comradery amongst the non Reformed of various stripes, in a unified desire to "affirm" some kind of goodness about man, and a lack of stomach to speak of the heart of man being evil and desperately wicked. Could it be that even this desire arises out of wickedness? There...now I've made someone angry, maybe they will post.

As I said, I think that the arguement swings both ways quite frankly. You WANT to think of yourself as that bad, because you don't want to have to face the music of your own choices. It so much easier to blame a sin nature than to blame our own will. (I should mention that this is a generalized 'you' refering to no one in particular... Further, this is purely psycho-babble, not necessarily a conscience decision path.)

Further, I would argue that Arminian thought doesn't seek to raise the level of man, but rather find the biblical position on depravity. Personally, that they want to raise man and lower God is just posioning the well from our Reformed friends...

Just some thoughts on the page...

Yours,
Xavier

[GoBahnsen]

Big surprise... The rest of Christendom doesn't believe in original sin as Luther and the Reformers did...

Even the Remonstrants had a disagreement over the doctrine of original sin.

However, I should make it clear that the orthodox Christian position that cannot be violated is depravity. One must be careful not to equate original sin to depravity.



I would agree with you on that one...



I think it has something to do with culpability and our own personal understandings of justice. But I have some serious exegetical concerns with the Original Sin position (especially the lack of exegesis).



I don't even equate original sin with the inhertence of a sin nature. Original sin is the doctrine that ALL men are held guilty because of Adam's sin.

From Dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com: Entry for Original Sin

original sin n.
In Christian theology, the condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience.

© source where applicable

The Wikipedia entry has more information on the varying definitions of original sin.



Because we inherit a sin nature from the world around us, introduced by Adam.



Because we chose to sin of our doing... I do not find that God holds us guilty of Adam's sin, but our own.



I don't think that anyone would claim that we are neutral. The argument centers around a REAL ability to do the contrary.

It shouldn't colour our theology at all, because theology should depend on exegesis first and systematics second... Not the other way around...



I rather think that our own personal opinion of ourselves colours a lot of Reformed Theology's appeal to Christians today. We want to think of ourselves as so pathetic, namely (I think) as an excuse for prior bad behaviour. You GB are not the only Calvinist who has used this a basis for understanding in theology.



As I said, I think that the arguement swings both ways quite frankly. You WANT to think of yourself as that bad, because you don't want to have to face the music of your own choices. It so much easier to blame a sin nature than to blame our own will. (I should mention that this is a generalized 'you' refering to no one in particular... Further, this is purely psycho-babble, not necessarily a conscience decision path.)

Further, I would argue that Arminian thought doesn't seek to raise the level of man, but rather find the biblical position on depravity. Personally, that they want to raise man and lower God is just posioning the well from our Reformed friends...

Just some thoughts on the page...

Yours,
Xavier

Thanks for the input. I would correct one thing as it regards itself to me, and that is that I personally do not blame my sinful nature. In fact, oddly enough I have never leaned that way. I am just truly disgusted with myself. I can say with great force "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing." And I really agree with that. People like me, think I'm great, but I know the real truth and I am just plain no good. That's not an attempt at false humility or a plea for sympathy, just the sad facts.

[Xavier]

Thanks for the input. I would correct one thing as it regards itself to me, and that is that I personally do not blame my sinful nature.

That's why I went back and edited in the line concerning a general 'you'... My thoughts were not aimed at GB the person, but at a more generalized person (ultimately a strawman).

In fact, oddly enough I have never leaned that way. I am just truly disgusted with myself. I can say with great force "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing." And I really agree with that. People like me, think I'm great, but I know the real truth and I am just plain no good. That's not an attempt at false humility or a plea for sympathy, just the sad facts.

It's that whole consept of self-deprecation that works in my theory. The idea is that you WANT to feel that way about yourself and Reformed thought gives you a rationalization.

So I think my OP question would have been:
How much does our view of ourselves colour our theology?

Food for thought... Again, none of my thoughts are aimed at you or any one person, but rather at my own generalization based on conversations and postings of several within the Reformed tradition.

Yours,
Xavier

[GoBahnsen]

That's why I went back and edited in the line concerning a general 'you'... My thoughts were not aimed at GB the person, but at a more generalized person (ultimately a strawman).



It's that whole consept of self-deprecation that works in my theory. The idea is that you WANT to feel that way about yourself and Reformed thought gives you a rationalization.

So I think my OP question would have been:
How much does our view of ourselves colour our theology?

Food for thought... Again, none of my thoughts are aimed at you or any one person, but rather at my own generalization based on conversations and postings of several within the Reformed tradition.

Yours,
Xavier

With all due respect, that is purely a judgment call on your part, that "I want to feel that". You are really just guessing at best. I realize you aren't personalizing toward me, but you also aren't being very careful to not aim it at me. You can believe what you like, but you don't really know me X and I don't really know you.

My guess is that much of our current culture here in America is a product of the past few decades of too much psychology and not enough real Bible teaching.

[Xavier]

With all due respect, that is purely a judgment call on your part, that "I want to feel that". You are really just guessing at best. I realize you aren't personalizing toward me, but you also aren't being very careful to not aim it at me. You can believe what you like, but you don't really know me X and I don't really know you.

I've said that already... I'm musing aloud.

My guess is that much of our current culture here in America is a product of the past few decades of too much psychology and not enough real Bible teaching.

I agree with you, but you don't seem to want to see that the door swings both ways.

[Nang]

I do think that there is probable a "legal" connection of some kind

Yes, yes, yes!

Sin is illegal. Sin breaks the law of God.

Justification from sin (the cross work of Jesus Christ) therefore was forensic in nature.

Jesus Christ is our "advocate" with the Father (our legal representative).

Jesus Christ fulfilled the very laws that all of us have broke.

Judgment Day will be a day in God's court.

Each person will stand accountable, LEGALLY, according to God's eternal and immutable law and have to answer as to how they kept or broke this law.

Those saved by the grace of God, will be represented by Jesus Christ, who will stand for them in court (judgment) and declare to the Almighty . . ."yes, this person did all these unlawful deeds, but I have already stood as substitute in Your court of law and paid his deserved sentence for those crimes," and these whom the Lord represented will be LEGALLY declared free of any penalty or punishment, because all such legal sentence (Romans 6:23) has been met in the works and sacrifce of Jesus Christ.

Justification of our souls was a legal accomplishment; forensic in nature, having nothing to do with our personal ~feelings~, actions, or self-help efforts and deeds, for there is not a one of us that could ever hope to satisfy the legal ramifications of Adam's sin or our own sins before God.

Only Jesus Christ could legally and finally acquit us of our crimes. Because He was declared legally guilty on the cross by God, in our stead, and served the sentence of punishment for our sins, in order to set us free from all charges against us.

In exchange, God in His grace and mercy, has LEGALLY declared us righteous and free from charges of our crimes . . .plus God has gone even further and LEGALLY adopted us as His own Sons.

Talk about amazing grace!!!

Talk about good lawyering!!!

You will never see such legal precedent on Court T.V. like our Lord has administered for us!

Nang

[Calvinist4Him]

Thanks for the input. I would correct one thing as it regards itself to me, and that is that I personally do not blame my sinful nature. In fact, oddly enough I have never leaned that way. I am just truly disgusted with myself. I can say with great force "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing." And I really agree with that. People like me, think I'm great, but I know the real truth and I am just plain no good. That's not an attempt at false humility or a plea for sympathy, just the sad facts.

Well said, I also agree with the Apostle Paul. The only good in you or I is Jesus Christ, and the work that He accomplishes through us. Praise God!

[micah4]

Thanks for your post and the sincerity with which it comes across. When I said a certain power to good or to do evil, I'm speaking of something like what Jesus said "if ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts..."

The thing is, that even man's "good" is flawed by his sin. It is unacceptable to God apart from Christ, the shed blood and grace...So, when I say good....I don't mean good in the sense of a perfect good, acceptable to God. The unregenerate help little old ladies cross the street as well...So yes, there will always be some kind of "self" motive in the good work that the unregenerate does.

Okay, so it seems that (in summary) you don't really hold that the unregenerate have the "power" to do either good or evil, you're simply saying that the evil they do isn't always the worst possible evil they could do- which I suppose is your distinction between "total" and "utter" depravity. They may not throw the old lady in front of the oncoming bus, but even in helping the old lady across the street their motives and actions are still not in line with what would be "good" in the sense of being truly righteous and fully in line with God's expectations. This degree of true righteous action is beyond his power to attain. If then the unregenerate's "God given" conscience informs him of the full extent of God's righteous requirements, then he is incapable of following this good of which his conscience informs him.

Do you you agree with this much? Or where is it that we differ, because we're going to differ, but at least we can work on clarity without trying to convert the other.

At this point I'm less inclined to think of Man's fallen state as a matter of nature than I once was. Man is in bondage to the powers of sin and death as a result of Adam's sin, but I'm no longer convinced this is so much a matter of nature as much as it is a matter of circumstance and environment. I probably would have more or less agreed with you as to the depravity of mans nature at one point. But I think we agree to the extent that we agree that man's state in a post-fall world is one of being in bondage to the power of sin and death.

Whether we agree or disagree that this state is a matter of nature rather than circumstance (i.e., even if we agreed that it was a matter of nature), I think our difference would lie less in the question of man's independent ability to do what God requires of him, and more in the question of the extent to which God's grace has been extended to men in this state to enable them towards that which God requires.