Yesterday morning my pastor preached on Romans 12-13 under the heading of “Cross-Centered Authenticity.” Though I missed much of the first half of the sermon walking the halls with a fussy baby, I returned in time to hear the end of the first (and longest) point and the final four points. I am glad I heard at least the summary of the first point, for it is a critical one. The pastor spoke of how the cross is the great leveller. “All of us have the same disease. All of us have the same problem. So I say the cross levels us. It makes us all equal. We all come to Christ dead in sin; no one is in less need of grace than anybody else and if we feel a kind of clinical detachment from other sinners…then I say to you that you don’t understand your own sin.”
This fit well with something I have been pondering in recent days. I have felt the desire to write a short series of articles on the Five Points of Calvinism (also known as TULIP), not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application as well. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than “mere theology,” but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. If this proves not to be the case, I will gladly step back and defend them from Scripture. But for now, we will assume at least some knowledge of them.
So let’s begin this series (which, unlike several other series I’ve embarked upon, I hope to actually complete) by discussing Total Depravity, the T of TULIP.
The term “total depravity” has fallen out of favor in recent days, in large part because “total” seems to be a word that confuses, rather than clarifies the doctrine. James Boice and Philip Ryken suggest “Radical Depravity,” as does Steve Lawson; R.C. Sproul suggests “Radical Corruption” and Michael Horton goes with “Rebels Without A Cause.” Regardless of the terms used, the doctrine reads something like this:
“Total Depravity is a theological term primarily associated with Calvinism, which interprets the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. In other words, a person is not by nature inclined to love God with his heart or mind or strength, rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor. Put another way, even with all circumstances in his favor a man without God can do nothing but work for his own destruction; and even his religion and philanthropy are destructive, to the extent that these originate from his own imagination, passions and will” (Wikipedia).
There is a sense in which Total Depravity undergirds the doctrines which follow it (Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Without Total Depravity, for example, it is possible for God to base election on the condition of a free will choice, thus rendering Unconditional Election invalid.
There is a bounty of biblical support for this doctrine. Genesis 6:5 tells us that “God saw that the intent of every heart was only continual evil.” Just two chapters later we read of man that “The intent of every heart is evil from its youth” (Genesis 8:21). Romans 3:10-18 tells us that there is none righteous. There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside. Other passages include Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3 and 2 Timothy 2:25 and 26. Because the purpose of this article is not to defend this doctrine, I will make no further comment by way of defense.
When we say that mankind fell in Adam, we affirm that as our federal head, Adam’s sin was passed on to all of us. Adam represented the human race, and when he decided to forsake God, he did so on behalf of all of us. This is similar to a head of state declaring war on another nation – his declaration means that each person within his nation, each person that he represents, is now at war with the foreign country. Job laments “Or how can he be pure who is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4) No one who has been born of man can escape this radically sinful nature. Nature tells us that like begets like; a dog can only give birth to dogs, not to cats or frogs or birds. Similarly a sinful person can only bring forth other sinful people.
Another affirmation we make in the Christian view of the fall is that there is a sense in which the first sin is ours in the same way in which it was Adam’s. While we did not actually take the piece of fruit and eat it, God foreordained our relationship to Adam long before Adam fell so that from the moment of our conception we are sinful. We are not innocent until we commit our first sin, but are condemned, sinful people from the moment our lives begin. Psalm 58:3 tells us that “the wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Before we are even born we are already sinful, and deliberately go astray as soon as we are able.
And so it is that humans are sinful from the moment life begins. But how sinful are they? We will turn to this now.
As we have seen, many Calvinists are uncomfortable with the term “Total Depravity.” Like others, I am convinced that a term such as Radical Depravity or Radical Corruption is superior. I believe these issues contribute to clarifying the matter, for by total depravity we do not mean that people are as depraved as they could possibly be—they are totally corrupt in some ways but not in others. It is here that it is helpful to distinguish between extent and degree.
When we say humans are totally depraved in extent, we mean that their depravity has reached every part of their being. It extends to every part of them – their mind, body and spirit are all corrupt. When we speak of a total degree of depravity, we indicate that something is exactly as bad as it could possibly be so that there is not even a tiny bit of good left.
Consider the illustration of three glasses of water. The first glass contains clean, pure water and represents Adam in his perfect state before the Fall. Now consider a second glass which contains this same clean, pure water. We can put one drop of deadly poison in that glass and it renders that entire glass poisonous so that if you were to drink it, you would quickly drop dead. That one drop extended to every part of the glass even though the entire vessel is not filled with poison. This represents humans after the Fall. While they are not wholly corrupt, the corruption they do have extends to every part. And finally consider a third glass which is filled entirely with poison. From top to bottom there is nothing but deadly poison. This represents Satan, who the Bible portrays as being absolutely corrupt so there is no good left whatsoever, but this does not represent humans here on earth. Humans are not as depraved as they could possibly be. We must note that sinful men who have been cast into hell will also be in this state where they are wholly depraved.
One might ask, then, why God has allowed men who are corrupt in extent not to be corrupt in degree. The reason we find in Scripture is simply that God is merciful. Had He not intervened every human would indeed be corrupt in both extent and degree. If every person in the world were as filled with sin as he could be, the world would be uninhabitable, filled with murderers, thieves and all manner of evil. Thankfully God has allowed even sinful men to avoid being wholly corrupt. There are several means He has given to do this.
Conscience – Every human being has been given a conscience, an inner working which helps restrain the desire to do evil. Paul writes in Romans 2 “…their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.” (verse 15)
Government – God has put civil authorities in place to restrain men from evil. Furthermore, He has given them the authority to dispense justice and punishment. Romans 13 verses 1 through 5 speak to this. “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.”
Fear of Death – Humans have a natural fear of death. Every man-made religion emphasizes the necessity of doing good so that we can store up a treasure of good deeds to supposedly sustain us in the life after death. Hebrews 2:14-15 reads “[Jesus] likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”
Society – People are also restrained by the desire to appear good before their friends, families and society in general. Doing good is generally valued highly enough that people seek to attain to some degree of goodness.
That is the Christian view on depravity. All humans are corrupt in extent – every part of us testifies to our imperfection, but thanks be to God, not in degree. And before us lies a decision. God tells us that when we die we can anticipate either becoming perfected, so once again we will be like that glass of water that is crystal clear, free from any poison of corruption or being cast out of His presence where we will become like that glass of poison, as corrupt and evil and filled with hate as we could possibly be.
In our next article, I’d like to make an application for this doctrine.





Comments (39) »
1. donsands
October 30, 2006
12:59 PM
Nice study. Good thoughts to think on. I like the 3 glasses of water illustration.
Unregenerate men and women surely can do good things. And can even glorify their Creator. But these deeds are but filthy rags.
2. Scott
October 30, 2006
1:36 PM
I am glad you are doing this series on the 5 points, as I am trying to better understand them.
Is this the “standard” view of Calvinism? I guess I was under the impression that Calvinists believed that our state of total depravity is what keeps men from being able to accept God’s gift of salvation apart from being specifically and unconditionally elected. This made me believe that total depravity must be in degree because there would be no good in man to recognize his depraved state and his need for God, thus undergirding unconditional election. If man’s being is not wholly depraved, why is it not possible for him to choose whether or not he will accept the gift?
I think the other points hinge on the definition of total depravity and so I hope this will help me understand. Thanks.
3. David
October 30, 2006
2:01 PM
“I have felt the desire to write a short series of articles on the Five Points of Calvinism … to draw some fresh application as well.”
Tim, I’m grateful. I have been feeling the desire lately to ‘reappreciate’ these truths as well. I enjoyed this first peek and look forward to the rest of the series also.
David
4. Josh
October 30, 2006
2:34 PM
Scott,
In regards to total depravity and the ability to trust in Christ for salvation:
As Tim said, part of Total Depravity is that “none seek after God”. As it says in Romans 8:7, “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.” We are depraved to the point that we have no ability to choose God. This is called Total Inability. I am not an expert on the five points of Calvinism, but I am pretty sure that Total Inability is included in Total Depravity.
I hope this helps.
5. Leslie
October 30, 2006
2:44 PM
Excellent thoughts on this one! I’m sure this will be an interesting series of posts.
I just have to add that, as a mother of four, I think it’s great that you were out walking around with a fussy baby during church.
6. Tim Challies
October 30, 2006
2:47 PM
“I just have to add that, as a mother of four, I think it’s great that you were out walking around with a fussy baby during church.”
My wife and I have it pretty well worked out that I take the baby for the first half of the sermon and then Aileen comes and feeds her while I head back in to catch the second half. The pastor tends to speak loudly enough (he’s got a foghorn of a voice, that guy) that I can often hear him quite well, even near the end of the hallway, so I am not completely clueless when I walk back in.
Interestingly, there are often two other fathers pacing the hall with me. We must have a good group of guys at this church…
7. r10b
October 30, 2006
3:55 PM
…The first glass contains clean, pure water and represents Adam in his perfect state before the Fall…
This is a good metaphor to illustrate the concept of depravity.
However it leads inevitably to the issue of free will and God’s responsibility for original sin. Jonathan Edwards, AFAIK, fell into the quicksand here. So while this illustration may be helpful for Believers, non-Believers will quickly point out that you’ve painted yourself into a corner — that God is the author of sin. I’d like to know of some resources that address these issues in tandem, which is where the problem revels itself.
I look forward to the rest of the series, Tim.
8. candyinsierras
October 30, 2006
4:03 PM
We must note that sinful men who have been cast into hell will also be in this state where they are wholly depraved.
I think that contrary to what some people believe, the gnashing of teeth and wailing in hell does not mean that men have eternal regret for their lack of salvation, but due to their depravity, the wailing and gnashing of teeth is the expression of absolute hatred towards God.
9. Josh
October 30, 2006
4:17 PM
Tim,
Could you expand on your comments that when a person is sent to hell, they will become as corrupt as they could be? Specifically, Scripture that would support this. I’ve actually never heard that before, and couldn’t think of any Scripture that would support this (not to say that there aren’t). Thanks.
10. julie
October 30, 2006
4:26 PM
I had a question as well. How does the doctrine of total depravity relate to believers? Are we any different that unbelievers, in your view ( in the calvinistic view), or are we still essentially totally depraved? I guess that’s 2 questions!
11. peter
October 30, 2006
4:37 PM
Tim,
Thank you for your study. It is refreshing to see doctrine applied as you are doing here rather than abstract essays to which we far too often become junkies.
I do have a few remarks in the form of questions. First, while I very much agree with you on your emphasis of “total depravity”, I am wondering, however, about the length to which you seem to take it and that, in the face of insisting “…by total depravity we do not mean that people are as depraved as they could possibly be…”
You write: “Without Total Depravity, for example, it is possible for God to base election on the condition of a free will choice, thus rendering Unconditional Election invalid.” It’s the “it is possible for God…” phrase I am having trouble with. Only possible for God? It sounds too neat and tidy—for me anyway.
Even more though, to so necessarily anchor total depravity to Unconditional Election is, in the end, from my vantage point, sophistry. Either Unconditional Election is Scriptural or it isn’t. It does not need the hook of total depravity to validate it, do you agree?
I would be interested to know, Tim, given your view of total depravity, or in your words “the Christian view on depravity”, how it is that “And before us lies a decision” could be true?
Perhaps you’re speaking here to just believers. Granted. Yet that seems unlikely for you did say the decision was to anticipate becoming perfected or “being cast out of His presence where we will become like that glass of poison, as corrupt and evil and filled with hate as we could possibly be.”
I assume that is an unregenerate.
Grace for this evening. With that, I am…
Peter
12. Dallas Pymm
October 30, 2006
5:36 PM
“However it leads inevitably to the issue of free will and God’s responsibility for original sin. Jonathan Edwards, AFAIK, fell into the quicksand here. So while this illustration may be helpful for Believers, non-Believers will quickly point out that you’ve painted yourself into a corner — that God is the author of sin.”
God is totally sovereign and we are totally responsible. It is not a contradiction. A contradiction is saying something is true and false at the same time. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are both true because scripture proclaims it. Even this being so a non-believer may still say the above, but should we expect any more than this without God working in them? A non-believer is blinded to the things of God i.e. the Gospel 2 Cor 4:1-6. All we can do is preach the gospel and pray God works a miracle.
I agree completely Candy. We must also realize that in hell sinners continue to sin and pay for the sins done in their life and in hell.
Julie. Christians are different from non-Christians because God has made us responsive to his grace. We can please God and we have the ability not to sin and the ability to sin, where as non-Christians can not please God and can do nothing but sin and enjoy it. Romans 8:8, Hebrews 11:6, Romans 14:23
Blessings to all
13. r10b
October 30, 2006
5:46 PM
Julie asked…
“Are we any different than unbelievers, …or are we still essentially totally depraved?”
When we by faith accept God’s grace, we can not at that point begin to rely on anything in ourselves to maintain our salvation. It is still God’s grace in spite of our continuing depravity. Our righteousness is Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us. We will become sanctified and conformed to His image, yet I believe, our righteousness is still as “filthy rags”. In my opinion, the Believer is still a poisoned glass, but God sees us, through the lens of Jesus, as pure water. We will be purified when we see Christ.
14. r10b
October 30, 2006
6:33 PM
“God is totally sovereign and we are totally responsible. It is not a contradiction…both (are) true because scripture proclaims it.”
I agree with you. I was just wondering if anybody has come across a less circular argument, because in conversations with unbelievers, TULIP sometimes seems to do more harm than good. I would like to know of a successful way of handling it.
Julie, I’d defer to Dallas if you seen any inconsistencies between our responses; mine may be a little fuzzy in places. Sorry.
15. Dallas Pymm
October 30, 2006
6:58 PM
r10b
“Julie, I’d defer to Dallas if you seen any inconsistencies between our responses; mine may be a little fuzzy in places. Sorry.”
That’s funny, I was just about to post that she should defer to you. We must both be a mess. :o)
As far as the TULIP argument to unbelievers, most of the time I have never had an unbeliever make this comment. Telling them that man is sinful entirely in need of God’s grace, and God in His mercy sent His son to die for His people securing their faith forever seems to do the trick as far as presentation. As for converts….still waiting for some and still rejoicing in the few God has saved and let me witness this miracle.
16. donsands
October 30, 2006
7:44 PM
The glass model doesn’t seem to work, when you then try to relate it to someone becoming regenerated.
The new creation in Christ surely remains a sinner, but becomes perfectly righteous as well.
As Luther says, “A Christian is at the same time a sinner and a saint; he is at once bad and good. For in our own person we are in sin, and in our own name we are sinners. But Christ brings another name in which there is forgiveness of sin, so that for His sake our sin is forgiven and done away. Both then are true. There are sins … and yet there are no sins. …
Thus our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the garment of grace that is put upon us, that God our Father may look upon us as sinners but receive us as righteous, holy, godly children, and give us eternal life.”
I suppose r10b has a point. But it just doesn’t feel kosher.
17. Christian
October 30, 2006
11:35 PM
“God is totally sovereign and we are totally responsible. It is not a contradiction…both (are) true because scripture proclaims it.”
This is true but in a family discussion among believers it is right to acknowledge that it is heart breaking and a mystery. If I require my four year old to push our Suburban up the steep incline of our driveway then punish him when he is incapable, I seem unjust.
God is not unjust. Arminian thought appealed to me for years because it did not lead me to blame God for a sinner’s future. I realized that this line of reasoning did not change the observation that the majority of humanity does not trust in the name of Jesus. What I realized is that neither Piper, nor Edwards, nor Calvin, nor Luther, nor Paul has explained this mystery.
Paul only offers the truth - - “who are we the clay to doubt the potter?” As I seek the character of God I realize that he is completely trustworthy. Any dim reflection that I have of justice in my mind is limited by my humaness. I trust him - - oh for grace to trust him more.
In Him,
Christian
18. Jasper
October 30, 2006
11:42 PM
From my 2yr old perspective on Calvinism, the difference between “total” and “radical” depravity as generally defined, makes sense only in two separate contexts. (The question is depravity for what, or towards what end? For example, I can be deprived in Spanish but fluent in English and Latin.) First context: total depravity makes sense if our depravity relates to salvation, God’s standard of perfection and our inability to save ourselves. Second context: radical depravity makes sense if you are only relating to a standard of being able to do some “good” things.
Perhaps the context or subject for which we are discussing whether or not we are “depraved,” determines our choice of radical or total. Is depraved meaning “wholly worthless and unusable” or “marked by?”
“By total depravity we do not mean that people are as depraved as they could possibly be—they are totally corrupt in some ways but not in others.”
This helps make my point. What _way_ (context/topic) are we discussing here? Perfection? Salvation? What pleases God? …Or how closely an action here on earth comes close to the “list” of actions that fulfill the “law.” (ie. An unbeliever may truly give their last two cents to help another needy person, but this still is not “effectual” towards salvation. It may be a good work in our book though…)
When replacing the damaged door on my car, I may choose to not use a yellow door because it wouldn’t match the rest of my already red car. While it would function for the purpose of the door, it would not match the color of the car. Are we talking about color or function? Are we talking about salvation or man’s perception of a “good guy” and his ability to do “good things?”
As far as salvation, total depravity sounds correct to me. Apart from God’s grace towards me, I’d end up in the same hell that the devil is being sent to. So even if I was not corrupt in some ways, I’d still end up in the same place.
As far as just doing “good works,” radical depravity works for me.
When we discuss the term “total” or “radical” “depravity,” in a general context and not in relation any specific subject, we then are forced to define it like “extent and degree.”
Does any tiny speck of good left in us, help us on toward salvation or towards pleasing God? “When we speak of a total degree of depravity, we indicate that something is exactly as bad as it could possibly be so that there is not even a tiny bit of good left.” Thus if we are not the devil, then we may have a tiny bit of good left. To what end?
Does this make sense, or have I missed something? Comments & corrections wanted.
19. chris
October 31, 2006
3:26 AM
my comment is directed to r10b
“However it leads inevitably to the issue of free will and God’s responsibility for original sin. Jonathan Edwards, AFAIK, fell into the quicksand here. So while this illustration may be helpful for Believers, non-Believers will quickly point out that you’ve painted yourself into a corner — that God is the author of sin.”
My question to r10b is. Can you come up with another way God could show His attributes of Grace and Mercy, without original sin?
This doesn’t make God the author of sin but allowed His other attributes to take effect.
20. CalvinRocks
October 31, 2006
6:49 AM
But to make the analogy better, you also decided to have the child knowing in advance that he would be required to push the car, but be unable to. Add to this that you yourself will punish your four-year-old by turning him over to a sadistic torturer who will keep him alive but in great pain forever. This is indeed a challenging doctrine…one that shows the difference between the saved and unsaved.
The natural mind can only respond by feeling this is unfair. Seeing things from Man’s point of view like this is the surest sign of reprobation!
But when you realize how majestic and awesome and righteous and perfect God is, you can only think how utterly repulsive and horrible all people must seem to Him, and how amazing it is that he saves anyone!
Glory be to God!
21. Jerry M
October 31, 2006
9:22 AM
I like the way Edwards distinguishes moral ability from natural ability. Man has the natural ability to obey - he lacks the moral ability.
In the picture of the 4 year old being told to push the Suburban [or whatever it was] up the hill - the analogy would be more accurate to say that he can physically push it up the hill - his problem is that his moral disposition is such that he won’t and he resents the fact that someone is telling him to! [that is moral inability]
Some say that our ‘wanter’ is broken. We don’t want to obey God and therein lies our inability. i.e. - it’s not a problem in our physical constitution but rather in our moral constitution
James R. White in ‘The Potter’s Freedom’ refers to a picture that Sam Storms gave trying to paint a negative picture of election
Storms said - consider a farmer with a pond who posts a ‘no swimming’ sign. Three 8 year old boys ignore the sign and go swimming. They all subsequently begin to drown. The farmer comes out and sees their plight. He decides to rescue one of the boys but makes no effort to save the other two because he doesn’t feel like it.
We are all supposed to see the callousness of the farmer, etc.
White responds with a better picture: [I don’t remember his exact details but it was something like this]
White says - You have a king who owns a great castle with a large family and many servants.
He decides to leave on a journey. While away - the servants begin to act wickedly - they rape the daughters and kill the sons - they throw a big party and in the midst of it all - they start the castle on fire and it is burning down on top of them. The king returns and sees the chaos. He calls out telling any inside how to be saved. They hear His voice and shout out their hatred towards him refusing to heed His voice. Finally - in mercy - the King decides to reach in and pluck several from the burning. He later takes them to a new castle - adopts them as his own sons and daughters - and they come to see how truly merciful He was to them
22. r10b
October 31, 2006
5:53 PM
#16 Consands said…I suppose r10b has a point. But it just doesn’t feel kosher.
It doesn’t feel kosher to me either, but it is my current understanding. I’ve just started John Murray’s “Redemption, Acomplished and Applied,” and I expect my understanding will be koshered right up.
#19 Chris said…Can you come up with another way God could show His attributes of Grace and Mercy, without original sin?
Well, that’s a possibility. William Lane Craig uses this argument in his debates. Although I would not say that since I can’t think of a better way for God to show His grace and mercy, He Himself couldn’t. That line of reasoning leads well past Eden to all the horrid consequences of sin (hatred, violence, disease, suffering, death) from then on — and they really add up! This would mean that, when the 10-year-old girl who lived near me tripped while chasing after the bus on her first day of middle school and was crushed under the wheels as her mother watched, it was the best way God could come up with to show his grace and mercy. You’ve gotta be made of stone to make that argument. Let’s not kid ourselves about the consequences of this idea.
This doesn’t make God the author of sin but allowed His other attributes to take effect.
It’s not clear to me how original sin was not part of what Piper calls “God’s Will of Decree.”
23. rebecca
October 31, 2006
10:09 PM
It’s not clear to me how original sin was not part of what Piper calls “God’s Will of Decree.”
I’m not sure what you mean by original sin. Reading through the comments it seems as if you referring to the fall when you use the term, so I’m framing this response assuming that you are referring to the fall.
The fall is included in God’s will of decree. It would be one of the things, however, that God decreed to permit, and all Calvinistic systems have the fall coming by way of God’s permission rather than his direct action. Since the fall doesn’t come about by God’s action, God is not the author of it, even though permission of the fall is included in his will of decree.
24. r10b
October 31, 2006
11:45 PM
Thanks, Rebecca. Yes, I mean the Fall.
You make a good point, but according to Edwards, what restricts our Will (yet does not negate culpability), as Jerry M said, is our moral ability — our motives — which are corrupt. We are bent toward sin, we prefer it, hence we desire to do it. Our excuse, such as it is, is Adam.
Adam was not bent toward sin. He did not prefer it yet he acted counter to his Will, contrary to what Edwards was driving at in “Free Will” (as I understood it). If Adam did not prefer sin (God didn’t drop a little poison in him from the start did He?) then it seems he was lead into sin by a power external to his Will. Satan does not fit the bill since he is just a tempter and without a corrupt Will temptation is all bark and no bite. (Could Jesus have possibly sinned in the wilderness?)
I know something’s wrong about this, but I can’t say what it is — and God’s probably fine with that.
Thanks for the comments, everybody. The horse is dead.
25. Christian
November 1, 2006
12:26 AM
I realized that the analogy of the four year old and the SUV on a steep hill was offensive. I also realized that the feelings it engendered in me were incorrect. I pictured my four year old (40 pounds) pushing our Suburban (4000 pounds) up a steep hill (14% grade). To Jerry M - - no, the four year old cannot physically accomplish this task own his own.
Neither can we being dead in our sins contribute to our salvation until God changes our hearts. This doctrine hurts but I trust God to be just. He is fair in a way that I can not understand with a finite mind. I don’t think that Edwards understood it any better than Paul. To the commenter who said “God is totally sovereign and we are totally responsible. It is not a contradiction…both (are) true because scripture proclaims it.”, I agree.
But arguing that a dead man can move a finger before God resurrects him is just untrue. I believe there are doctrines where we reach the boundary of human intellect and we have to trust. We don’t disengage our minds but simplistic explanations & even Edwards’ complex explanations don’t take away the mystery.
26. chris
November 1, 2006
7:10 AM
r10b,
I really am confused on your comment about the 10 year old girl who was crushed by a bus. What does that have to do with “original sin”? Also,
the only human being who actually had true “freewill” was Adam. We are all under a curse that prohibits us from being totally free. I really think its always wrong to compare our posterity to that of Adam. Adam was made in the image of God. We were made in the image of Adam after the fall. That is why one must experience the power of God through the “new birth”.
R10b, I would still like you to come up with a answer of how could God reveal His attributes of Mercy and Grace without “original sin”. You seemed to just pass that over. Thanks
27. Ken Abbott
November 1, 2006
7:58 AM
Clarification to #21: The comment makes it seem as if Storms opposes the doctrine of unconditional election, when in fact Storms defended the doctrine against the weak parable of the farmer that originated with Norman Geisler. Storms’s critique of Geisler’s parable is devastating. As far as can be told, Geisler has never responded or adjusted his parable—he used it in unmodified fashion as recently as his misguided and erroneous book Chosen But Free.
28. Jerry M
November 1, 2006
8:11 AM
Christian - I would agree with you that man cannot contribute to his salvation or accomplish it in anyway.
I think they moral inability/ natural ability picture was a reference to law keeping or obeying God.
Natural man does happen to keep some of God’s laws once in a while.
Not everyone has committed murder - and even by Jesus’ definition in the sermon on the mount - angry and hateful people are not angry and hateful all the time
My point about the SUV was that some 4 year olds will push it up the hill once in a while for various reasons of conscience - societal standards
That is not to suggest that man could actually perfectly keep the law - he can’t. But why? Because some hidden force is making him sin - pulling the puppet strings. No - it is that he doesn’t want to. He chooses to sin. His moral constitution, since the fall, is such that he will inevitably sin. That is moral inability.
If you restrict the matter to belief - I would agree - natural man cannot understand and believe apart from God’s work of regeneration.
Grace and peace
29. mikbry24
November 1, 2006
9:05 AM
As Hershael York preached from the Book of Ezekiel (a message titled, What Do You Do When God Causes Your Worst-Case Scenario) once, I heard him make this statement,
I think that is an excellent, succinct statement.God is Good. God has every right to do as He sees fit. He cannot and will not do evil and therefore, for us to question Him or His motives becomes pointless as He cannot do anything that is outside the scope of His being “Good” and “Perfect.”
30. Jerry M
November 1, 2006
9:21 AM
Thanks Ken for clarifying on who spoke the parable - my bad! The parable is Geisler’s - and Storms critiqued it. James White makes use of the discussion in his book, ‘The Potter’s Freedom’ [pp. 306-312]- critiquing Geisler’s book, ‘Chosen but Free’
A few points made:
‘The major problem with the parable is not what it does say but what it doesn’t say. It is the entire blocks of truth that are ignored that allows one to conclude that the loving God who redeems an unworthy people is in fact less than all loving.’
The farmer - is not a good representation of God. The closest to human analogy would be to have God as the greatest king who ever reigned.
The parable trivializes sin
3 good ol boys swimming in a pond is hardly an accurate picture of the depths of the depravity of the human heart
Boys drowning and desiring to be rescued is not an accurate picture of fallen man either
The sinner does not want to be rescued - He likes his sin
31. rebecca
November 1, 2006
10:55 AM
Adam was not bent toward sin.
Right.
He did not prefer it yet he acted counter to his Will,
He didn’t act counter to his will. Adam was not bent toward good either. You might say he was neutral.
Satan does not fit the bill since he is just a tempter and without a corrupt Will temptation is all bark and no bite. (Could Jesus have possibly sinned in the wilderness?)
I’d say this is where your argument goes off the rails. Even for Jesus, Satan wasn’t all bark and no bite. Jesus resisted temptation by staying in constant communion with God. He lived in the Spirit. He certainly felt the pressure of the temptation, and he felt it stronger than Adam did because he resisted to the end. But Adam, who was, at the time of temptation, for whatever reason, separate from God’s influence, did not resist the temptation.
But we know two things for certain. God did not directly influence Adam to sin, since God cannot do evil. At the same time, Adam’s fall is in “God’s will of decree” as you are calling it. God’s will of decree is really just his plan for human history, and since Christ was ordained to be the redeemer before the foundation of the world, the presence of sin was also in the plan. Putting those two things together, you come up with the fall being decreed by permission. Going much beyond this in our speculation (like speculating what the exact mechanism for Adam’s sin was) is going beyond what we’re told or what we can put together from what we’re told.
32. r10b
November 1, 2006
11:03 PM
#26 Chris asked…
I really am confused on your comment about the 10 year old girl who was crushed by a bus. What does that have to do with “original sin”?
Romans 5:12a “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin…” You’re the one who suggested that sin and death are necessary so God could show grace and mercy. I was just giving a real-life example of the outworking of that concept.
Chris also said…
I would still like you to come up with a answer of how could God reveal His attributes of Mercy and Grace without “original sin”. You seemed to just pass that over.
What difference does it make if I can’t think of a better way? But just for fun let’s say God could have created Man with a full understanding of grace and mercy from the outset and dispensed with the object lessons all together. If I may put on my atheist-colored glasses and ask you this: Would like-wise decide the best way to teach a person you love about your level grace and mercy by allowing some thug to beat them to a pulp so you could give first aid?
#31 Rebecca said…
…speculating what the exact mechanism for Adam’s sin is going beyond what we’re told or what we can put together from what we’re told.
True enough. But to anybody but a like-minded fellow Christian that’s — as we said in the 70’s — a cop-out.
33. rebecca
November 2, 2006
3:14 PM
True enough. But to anybody but a like-minded fellow Christian that’s — as we said in the 70’s — a cop-out.
Admitting that there are things you don’t know and can’t know is hardly a cop-out. It’s admitting to the finiteness of our ability to know.
It’s impossible for us to know and understand everything about God and the way he accomplishes things. If we did, that would make the Creator and his workings no greater than us and our workings. There would be no “otherness” to God.
If someone has a problem with that, then the problem is with the overestimation of their own abilities as they compare to the ability of God, which is, at the heart of it, an underestimation of the “otherness” (the Godness, the diety, the holiness) of God. If someone thinks the answers scripture gives us on this subject, along with what we can logically reason from those answers, is a cop out, then I’d think they don’t need better answers to this particular guestion, but rather a better understanding of the otherness of God.
34. Brett
November 2, 2006
11:37 PM
Did Adam and Eve have the natural or moral ability not to sin?
35. donsands
November 3, 2006
10:21 AM
Bret,
Yes. I believe so. They only had one command, and yet rebelled. Though the Lord knew they would.
36. vynette
November 3, 2006
6:05 PM
Chris, you said
“We are all under a curse that prohibits us from being totally free. I really think its always wrong to compare our posterity to that of Adam. Adam was made in the image of God. We were made in the image of Adam after the fall. That is why one must experience the power of God through the “new birth”.”
Every re-born Christian is made in the image of God, is ‘begotten’ of God, and can sin no more. Original sin, if it ever existed, ceased at the ‘last Adam’.
From birth onwards, it’s now our choice. It’s a simple one - follow the old man ‘Adam’ or the new man ‘Jesus’.
37. Steve
November 8, 2006
6:54 PM
As I read this post, I found that this is probably one of the most clear in defining the “total depravity” doctrine, in a way that fits more closely with what is taught in scripture. Indeed the concept of “total depravity” is only a theological term, used, as you said, in applications surrounding Calvin and the theology he instituted.
Scripture teaches that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve’s sin, yet to be completely accurate, it entered from Eve first. This would seem to be a trivial point, yet the very underpinnings of Calvinism in general require that all the pieces fit as a whole, or the concept that he built falls apart.
Indeed, there are many aspects of sin, and our accountability that he, himself, either refused to see or could not, without altering his ideology. As you stated in your post, this “total depravity” undergirds most of the other aspects, but that would be true of all. Removal of one, or the alteration of one, requires the alteration of all the others.
It is a fact, however, that one of the basic tenets of “total depravity” that Calvin taught was that man is utterly incapeable of doing anything to save himself. Early Presbyterian creeds, which Calvin quotes in a fashion, in his Institutes Vol 2 reads, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. And their numbers are so certian and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”
Working from this aspect, Calvin could not reconcile how we could be “accountable” for our sin when we were, by his understanding, incapeable of doing or being anything different. Since that “aspect’ of us was created in us and by God, then our responsibility for sin was brought into question. A question Calvin said was not resolved in scripture. I whole-heartedly disagree with that conclusion.
Scripture teaches that God’s word is the tool, the power, through which our our ability to choose life or death, is derived. As scripture says..”Faith comes by hearing the word…” Someone on here mentioned that Adam was created in God’s image, and we were created in Adam’s image. I disagree with this, because it is not our physical being that makes us “in the image of God”. It is the spirit God breathed into us that makes us like Him. Indeed, Paul tried to state this in Romans 7 and on, when he said that it is a war within us that the spirit strives to do God’s will, but we fail trapped in this sinful body. Therefore, there resides inside us a spirit that can hear God’s word and act upon it…albeit, in a pitiful and inept fashion while we remain locked within our physical bodies.
I look forward to more on this subject.
38. donsands
November 8, 2006
7:45 PM
Steve,
One thought came to me. I agree that all mankind is created in the image of God.
“So God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. … In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.” Gen. 1:27; 5:1-2
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” 1 Cor. 11:7
For me, it seems the whole package of a human is in the image of God. Our bodies have a portion of the image, as does our soul & mind.
Especially Adam. When he fell, he surely marred the image. And now all who are born in this age are marred.
39. Steve
November 8, 2006
8:05 PM
donsands,
I believe that I agree with you. I believe that our bodies do represent a portion of that “Godly image”. I felt I needed to sort of lean to a far side in my statement because we often forget, neglect, overlook, or elsewise pass over the fact that we are not ‘all’ we see in the mirror each morning. That there is an aspect to us that is more like God, than these physical bodies. As Paul said, “the mind controlled by the spirit is life and peace…”
Then later “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.”
Thanks for pointing that out, however….:)