The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[The_Epsicle]

Great post Malachi, since I've kind of put my foot in my mouth every time I post in this thread I've just been observing so as to avoid doing that again but I'm still here. I'd like to contribute some more passages to Malachi's point, I'm keeping them as short as possible for the sake of brevity but it is necessary that I am quoting a large portion, I've added some emphasis.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." - Romans 1:18-25 ESV

You see Malachi's point made here in the New Testament as well as his example of Pharaoh, God only hardens the heart of those whom he has given every opportunity to change and yet they refused. This point is also made in other parts of the Bible even by Jesus himself in Matthew 12:

"The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here." - Matthew 12:41-42 ESV

"And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house for I have five brothers so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”" - Luke 16:27-31 ESV

God has truly done a tremendous amount to save the worst of the worst and I include myself in that statement, I was a Lifeguard for two years and if I did a quarter of as much to save a drowning person as God has done to save sinners and the person still died, I would've been hailed as a hero who went above and beyond the call of duty. (Recommended reading: The entire book of Jonah)

 

[Deborah13]

God has truly done a tremendous amount to save the worst of the worst and I include myself in that statement

Me, too. Good post.

 

[ivdavid]

One cannot just do some things and think they are fulfilling a covenant/contract.
I hire someone to build a house. The contract lists the rooms that house will include and the description/specs, for each room.
He thinks he has fulfilled the contract, but he didn't install one bathroom sink, he hasn't fulfilled the contract. He's not guilty of not installing the carpet, just not the sink, and yet the contract has not been fulfilled.

I can relate to this. I see how it works at the larger level of final completion and delivery - But wouldn't this analogy then be likewise applicable to even during the very process of building? Let me explain -

For argument's sake, allow me to extend your analogy where the contract has one mutually agreed point which states - "Irrespective of the task undertaken, all workers within the building must wear safety helmets at all times". Now, supposing the worker installing the carpet does not have his helmet on - is he or is he not found in violation of the contract though he ends up installing the carpet as per the carpet specifications?

 

[ivdavid]

So you're saying that Calvinism doesn't refer to a reformed doctrine? So we should just stick to Lutheran theology?

That isn't the valid conclusion from what I wrote, is it? When we're discussing something specific to the doctrine of total depravity, why should it be linked directly only to calvinism - when there are other denominations that hold on to this as well. What I wrote logically amounted to this - that Reformed doctrines don't necessarily refer to just Calvinism, the overall point being our focus shouldn't be about any specific denomination - but instead on specific doctrines irrespective of which denominations hold on to them.

And it's quite easy to let our passion over our beliefs spill into aggression. Let's keep reminding ourselves that we're all here to simply get a good apologetic discussion going - sharing our beliefs and listening to others. Would just make it a more pleasant thread - I've been in many threads that break down to sheer spite and trust me, it's no fun at all.

 

[ivdavid]

He has given us the ability to love Him of our own volition. After all, if He forced us to love Him, it really wouldn't be love. He waits for us to take that step of faith.

A minor query on something not directly related to what you were discussing - could you elaborate on what the correlation is between our "loving God" and our "taking the step of faith" ? Are you implying that we begin to love God only in choosing to believe in Him - or am I misreading that?

 

[The_Epsicle]

That isn't the valid conclusion from what I wrote, is it? When we're discussing something specific to the doctrine of total depravity, why should it be linked directly only to calvinism - when there are other denominations that hold on to this as well. What I wrote logically amounted to this - that Reformed doctrines don't necessarily refer to just Calvinism, the overall point being our focus shouldn't be about any specific denomination - but instead on specific doctrines irrespective of which denominations hold on to them.

And it's quite easy to let our passion over our beliefs spill into aggression. Let's keep reminding ourselves that we're all here to simply get a good apologetic discussion going - sharing our beliefs and listening to others. Would just make it a more pleasant thread - I've been in many threads that break down to sheer spite and trust me, it's no fun at all.

The Lutheran agrees.

Man I must have missed the third page... I'm all for this being the "stumbling blocks of Lutheran Theology", there so much misunderstanding about us it's not funny... but I digress. I'm gonna go read the third page now.

 

[OzSpen]

DEFINITION OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY: Calvin, No one is capable of saving oneself. You find something wrong with that?

'No one is capable of saving oneself' is included in the doctrine of salvation (soteriology). Total depravity relates to the doctrine of sin (hamartiology) - the universality of sin, not just in acts of sin but in possession of a sinful nature by all human beings.

I'm of the view that to use the language of 'total depravity' opens one up to misunderstanding as it can give the impression that unbelievers can do no good. That is not the case.

I prefer the language of 'our inherited corruption' (from Adam) (Ps 51:5 ESV; Ps 58:3 ESV) or 'our tendency to sin', so this means that from God's point of view, 'we are not able to do anything that pleases him (Eph 2:3 ESV).... In our natures we totally lack spiritual good before God (Rom 7:18 ESV; Titus 1:15 ESV).... In our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God' (John 15:5 ESV; Rom 8:8 ESV) (Wayne Grudem 1994:497).

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[OzSpen]

That isn't the valid conclusion from what I wrote, is it? When we're discussing something specific to the doctrine of total depravity, why should it be linked directly only to calvinism - when there are other denominations that hold on to this as well. What I wrote logically amounted to this - that Reformed doctrines don't necessarily refer to just Calvinism, the overall point being our focus shouldn't be about any specific denomination - but instead on specific doctrines irrespective of which denominations hold on to them.

And it's quite easy to let our passion over our beliefs spill into aggression. Let's keep reminding ourselves that we're all here to simply get a good apologetic discussion going - sharing our beliefs and listening to others. Would just make it a more pleasant thread - I've been in many threads that break down to sheer spite and trust me, it's no fun at all.

ivdavid,

That is well stated. It's important to remember that James Arminius was a student of Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor at Geneva) and was 'Reformed' in his perspective. To his dying day, Arminius was a Dutch Reformed Church minister. He was Reformed in his views - but not Calvinistic Reformed.

Did Arminius believe in Total Depravity/Inability?

The Society of Evangelical Arminians: ‘The FACTS of Salvation,T: Total Depravity‘, has written, Article 3 of the Five Articles of Remonstrance, which states:

Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing".​

What did Jacobus Arminius believe about Total Depravity? In one of his disputations, he wrote:

V. In the state of Primitive Innocence, man had a mind endued with a clear understanding of heavenly light and truth concerning God, and his works and will, as far as was sufficient for the salvation of man and the glory of God; he had a heart imbued with "righteousness and true holiness," and with a true and saving love of good; and powers abundantly qualified or furnished perfectly to fulfill the law which God had imposed on him. This admits easily of proof, from the description of the image of God, after which man is said to have been created, (Gen. i. 26, 27,) from the law divinely imposed on him, which had a promise and a threat appended to it, (ii, 17,) and lastly from the analogous restoration of the same image in Christ Jesus. (Ephes. iv. 24, Col. iii. 10.)

VI. But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence, as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind and relating to spiritual life,) inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The Dominion of Sin. For "to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey," (Rom. vi. 16,) and "of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage," and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet. ii. 19.)

VII. In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man (Arminius 1977:525-526).​

So, Jacobus (James) Arminius and Reformed/Classical Arminians believe in Total Depravity / Total Inability.

Oz

Works consulted
Arminius, J. 1977 The writings of James Arminius, vol. 1, Public disputations of Arminius, Disputation 11 (On the free will of man and its powers), 523-531. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. Available at: Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library (Accessed 13 June 2015).

 

[ivdavid]

I'm all for this being the "stumbling blocks of Lutheran Theology", there so much misunderstanding about us it's not funny...

Haha...I'm sorry, the thread title stays. But yes, I guess I too will have to read up on Lutheran doctrines - or PM you later about them.

I've just been observing so as to avoid doing that again but I'm still here.

We're free to observe, we're free to write - just let's not keep quiet for fear of offending someone. I guess most around here encourage good discussions - and it's always easy to ask and get something clarified from the other person over his/her posts.

You see Malachi's point made here in the New Testament as well as his example of Pharaoh, God only hardens the heart of those whom he has given every opportunity to change and yet they refused.

I agree with both of you. But why is this being discussed here - unless we've just jumped on to discussing predestination and I missed that.

Anyway, in this context, and hopefully without digressing too much, I ponder upon -
Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

My thoughts go - If it would be better for that man not to be born, and given man being born is a work of God - why didn't God not make that man to be born as the better option for him, given God's foreknowledge of his own evil actions and their dire consequences? Again, this is not meant to question God or doubt His ways - just to get perspective on how we each perceive it.

 

[The_Epsicle]

I'm of the view that to use the language of 'total depravity' opens one up to misunderstanding as it can give the impression that unbelievers can do no good. That is not the case.

I don't believe it does, Lutherans sometimes refer to "total depravity" as "the bondage of will" or by the Latin phrase "simul iustus et peccator"(simultaneously sinner and saint) both of those get into some hefty Lutheran theology but Luther also used "total depravity"(albeit in German or Latin) so I've used it since "total depravity" conveys only the idea that we are completely fal. We still have "Ad imaginem Dei"(the image of God) so part of us, even as non believers can still do some measure of good.

I prefer the language of 'our inherited corruption' (from Adam) (Ps 51:5 ESV; Ps 58:3 ESV) or 'our tendency to sin', so this means that from God's point of view, 'we are not able to do anything that pleases him (Eph 2:3 ESV).... In our natures we totally lack spiritual good before God (Rom 7:18 ESV; Titus 1:15 ESV).... In our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God' (John 15:5 ESV; Rom 8:8 ESV) (Wayne Grudem 1994:497).

I'm confused because the last sentence of your referenced works you seem to contradict what you said above. Would you mind clarifying?

 

[ivdavid]

The_Epsicle ,

In case you've already heard this before, we can directly skip to the conclusions. If not, here's an argument that's fictional -

There was a beggar down my street who kept asking me for food each day I went out - and I kept refusing, since I found the whole episode irritating. Finally, one day, I decided to take him a large bowl of food - which he ate and went away happily. On that very specific day, and with respect to just this beggar, would you say I have done good?

 

[OzSpen]

I don't believe it does, Lutherans sometimes refer to "total depravity" as "the bondage of will" or by the Latin phrase "simul iustus et peccator"(simultaneously sinner and saint) both of those get into some hefty Lutheran theology but Luther also used "total depravity"(albeit in German or Latin) so I've used it since "total depravity" conveys only the idea that we are completely fal. We still have "Ad imaginem Dei"(the image of God) so part of us, even as non believers can still do some measure of good.



I'm confused because the last sentence of your referenced works you seem to contradict what you said above. Would you mind clarifying?

So what's the confusing point of my communication that you cited?

I prefer the language of 'our inherited corruption' (from Adam) (Ps 51:5 ESV; Ps 58:3 ESV) or 'our tendency to sin', so this means that from God's point of view, 'we are not able to do anything that pleases him (Eph 2:3 ESV).... In our natures we totally lack spiritual good before God (Rom 7:18 ESV; Titus 1:15 ESV).... In our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God' (John 15:5 ESV; Rom 8:8 ESV) (Wayne Grudem 1994:497).​

I'm as capable as any to write in a confusing way, but when I don't know the specifics, it's impossible to address your 'confusion' that I seem to have created.

In my referenced works from Grudem, the first point was: (1) 'we are not able to do anything that pleases him (Eph 2:3 ESV)'. And (2) the last point was, 'In our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God' (John 15:5 ESV; Rom 8:8 ESV).

In both (1) and (2) as outlined here, I am saying that we are unable to do anything that pleases God and that flows into 'our actions' where we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God. What's contradictory about those two points?

Oz

 

[The_Epsicle]

Here's what you said Oz, I've emphasized the points of my confusion.

"I'm of the view that to use the language of 'total depravity' opens one up to misunderstanding as it can give the impression that unbelievers can do no good. That is not the case.

I prefer the language of 'our inherited corruption' (from Adam) (Ps 51:5 ESV; Ps 58:3 ESV) or 'our tendency to sin', so this means that from God's point of view, 'we are not able to do anything that pleases him (Eph 2:3 ESV).... In our natures we totally lack spiritual good before God (Rom 7:18 ESV; Titus 1:15 ESV).... In our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God' (John 15:5 ESV; Rom 8:8 ESV) (Wayne Grudem 1994:497)."

In one part you say it is not the case that we can do no good, in another you say we are incapable of doing any good. That is my confusion.

Haha...I'm sorry, the thread title stays. But yes, I guess I too will have to read up on Lutheran doctrines - or PM you later about them.

I'd recommend the Book of Concord(collections of most of our important church documents, catechism's, apologetics, imperial diets, ext...), as well as "The proper distinction between Law and Gospel" by C.F.W Walther. Or feel free to PM me because I've been called a walking wikipedia by my friends on this particular subject.

We're free to observe, we're free to write - just let's not keep quiet for fear of offending someone. I guess most around here encourage good discussions - and it's always easy to ask and get something clarified from the other person over his/her posts.

I'm not worried about offending people(with the Gospel that is), God's gospel is meant to be offensive, I was just trying not to sound like a fool again. (Proverbs 17:8)

I agree with both of you. But why is this being discussed here - unless we've just jumped on to discussing predestination and I missed that.

Anyway, in this context, and hopefully without digressing too much, I ponder upon -
Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

My thoughts go - If it would be better for that man not to be born, and given man being born is a work of God - why didn't God not make that man to be born as the better option for him, given God's foreknowledge of his own evil actions and their dire consequences? Again, this is not meant to question God or doubt His ways - just to get perspective on how we each perceive it.

We couldn't have jumped into predestination because it wasn't our choice to jump... Joking aside to answer your question the Bible doesn't say why God didn't do something, but Judas had to be born to fulfill what had been foretold based on the verse you quoted and Judas could've been forgiven for betraying Jesus but he killed himself and sealed his fate.

In case you've already heard this before, we can directly skip to the conclusions. If not, here's an argument that's fictional -

There was a beggar down my street who kept asking me for food each day I went out - and I kept refusing, since I found the whole episode irritating. Finally, one day, I decided to take him a large bowl of food - which he ate and went away happily. On that very specific day, and with respect to just this beggar, would you say I have done good?

Well if it were truly out of hate you wouldn't have done it in the first place because you would know he was just going to beg you some more from you the next day, if you really wanted to shut him up you would've endured until he realized you were truly heartless and had no interest in whether he lived or died, I am left to surmise that there was a part of you that loved this man(Ad Imaginem Dei) whether or not you realized it, and even though he annoyed you far more than you loved him you knew giving him the food was the right thing to do and so you did it. On that day to that specifc begger you have done good, because being annoyed is not a Sin.

 

[The_Epsicle]

I'm not worried about offending people(with the Gospel that is), God's gospel is meant to be offensive, I was just trying not to sound like a fool again. (Proverbs 17:8)

Goodness gracious I mean Proverbs 17:28! This is why I wasn't posting!

 

[OzSpen]

Here's what you said Oz, I've emphasized the points of my confusion.

"I'm of the view that to use the language of 'total depravity' opens one up to misunderstanding as it can give the impression that unbelievers can do no good. That is not the case.

I prefer the language of 'our inherited corruption' (from Adam) (Ps 51:5 ESV; Ps 58:3 ESV) or 'our tendency to sin', so this means that from God's point of view, 'we are not able to do anything that pleases him (Eph 2:3 ESV).... In our natures we totally lack spiritual good before God (Rom 7:18 ESV; Titus 1:15 ESV).... In our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God' (John 15:5 ESV; Rom 8:8 ESV) (Wayne Grudem 1994:497)."

In one part you say it is not the case that we can do no good, in another you say we are incapable of doing any good. That is my confusion.

This week in Queensland we've had an utter tragedy unfolding in far north of the state in the small community of Ravenshoe. See the item about the aftermath of this horrific crash and the burns victims: 'Ravenshoe burns victims facing 50 hours of surgery'. Using this story as a base, we can say that there are a number of non-Christians who have been doing good, exceptional good:

• Dr Michael Rudd is treating burns victims with horrific burns (an exceptionally good action);
• 'Staff at the Intensive Care Unit at Queensland's major health facility, the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, are working overtime keeping eight victims of the Ravenshoe cafe blast ventilated and unconscious' (another good action);
• 'Dr Rudd said the "sacrifice" of those who chose to donate their skin after death was giving his patients a chance, with the most critically injured suffering "more wound than available donor site" from which to harvest skin' (another good action);
• 'Another nine patients are in serious conditions in the Cairns Base Hospital, where Professor Michael Muller, who treated victims of the devastating Christchurch earthquake, has flown with a team of three surgeons to head up life saving surgeries there.' (good action)
• '"They are very modest people, but certainly in my eyes and the estimation of all Queenslanders, these two surgeons here, in Brisbane and in Cairns, are true heroes of this tragedy." (marvellously good action)
• Etc.

This disaster has seen a plethora of good things done by people, people who may have no Christian commitment. I find 'total depravity' to be language that does not allow for these kinds of good actions by secular, sinful people.

HOWEVER, I was trying to differentiate two things:
1. The ability of ordinary, secular people to do good things to others, communities and self; and
2. The inability to do good to find favour with God. No matter how many good things are done to others, communities and self, they will NEVER win favour with God.

My point was that when we use the language of 'total depravity', it can give the impression that point #1 (unbelievers doing good) is not valid in Christian theology. That's why I prefer the language of 'total inability to please God' rather than 'total depravity'.

Oz

 

[The_Epsicle]

Hang on a second, here's why I'm getting slightly confused in this thread. Is "reformed doctrine" another phrase to refer to Calvinism? Because this whole time I was thinking you meant every reformed doctrine, basically all protestant doctrine and what their stumbling blocks are...

Well Oz I could see it being referred to as totally sinful for clarification because someone who is completely sinful is still made in the image of God and due to that reason they can do some good even exceptional good but we know our works don't save us from our totally depraved/sinful/fallen state only God can. I guess I just don't see why total depravity would convey the message that we are incapable of doing any good, we certainly can do good as unbelievers but our good deeds will always have that stain of a sinner on them as long as we are on earth.

 

[OzSpen]

I guess I just don't see why total depravity would convey the message that we are incapable of doing any good, we certainly can do good as unbelievers but our good deeds will always have that stain of a sinner on them as long as we are on earth.

I think you could see why 'total depravity' doesn't convey the exact message if you understood what I understand is the meaning of TOTAL.

Total = 'constituting or comprising the whole; entire; whole.... of or relating to the whole of something.... complete in extent or degree; absolute; unqualified; utter.... involving all aspects, elements, participants, resources, etc.; unqualified; all-out' (dictionary.com).

Oz

 

[ivdavid]

here's an argument that's fictional -
There was a beggar down my street who kept asking me for food each day I went out - and I kept refusing, since I found the whole episode irritating. Finally, one day, I decided to take him a large bowl of food - which he ate and went away happily. On that very specific day, and with respect to just this beggar, would you say I have done good?

On that day to that specifc begger you have done good...

That's what I too replied when I first read this...

The fictional argument continues to reveal new information...

What if on that particular day, I had had enough of this tiresome beggar - that I decided to murder him with a bowl of poisoned food - but due to a series of unexpected circumstances, I accidentally take out a bowl of unpoisoned food mistaking it for the bowl into which I'd added the poison - and the beggar eats it and walks away happily. On that very specific day, and with respect to just this beggar, would you still say I have done good?

Of course, this argument is highly unrealistic and banks on the fact that we'd go with the most probable assumptions - but nonetheless, it serves a good platform to begin discussing what "good" is or is not. It would help in the current context to distinguish between 'good' meant as benefit to the receiver, and 'good' meant as right done by the doer.

 

[ivdavid]

..the Bible doesn't say why God didn't do something, but Judas had to be born to fulfill what had been foretold based on the verse you quoted..

Stretching the argument further, couldn't God have then not foretold it, in order to do what's better for that man by not making him to be born, given God's foreknowledge of his own evil actions and their dire consequences?

 

[Deborah13]

St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.

Jas 1:13 Let no one say, being tempted--`From God I am tempted,' for God is not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one,
Jas 1:14 and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed,
Jas 1:15 afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death.
Jas 1:16 Be not led astray, my brethren beloved;
Jas 1:17 every good giving, and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the lights, with whom is no variation, or shadow of turning;

Why can unbelievers do good. Well, God created man to do good, to glorify Himself. So we know all men are capable of doing good. God never tempts man to do evil, evil comes from man's own desires to please himself. All good comes from God, whether it is done by an unbeliever and a believer. God is the Cause, the source, of All good.
ie.
Cyrus, of Babylonia, was directly lead by God to set all the Babylonian slaves free. If the Bible had not told us that he had been lead by God, we would not know that he was. The world did not give credit to God. It looked like the compassion of a pagan king.
So today when we see wealthy secular people, spending billions of dollars feeding and getting medical care to third world countries, they get credit in the eyes of world and even in the eyes of some Christians. But they would not be doing those things if God had not created man to be good to start with and God most likely is the force that is leading them to do it. The people in the third world countries are being blessed by God. But they won't know it, if no one tells them. And God is not glorified in His gracious giving and mercy on them. And God's kingdom is not advanced in the world. Only those who know God can right this unjustice that man perpetrates on God.
So when Jesus says, you can do nothing without Me, I see Him saying, You can do nothing that glorifies God, without Me. You can do nothing that leads others to be servants of the Father, without Me. You cannot be a servant of God, without Me. You cannot believe without Me. A servant of God does not hide His light under a bushel, or take credit for the good he does, in advancing the kingdom of God.

I don't believe it does, Lutherans sometimes refer to "total depravity" as "the bondage of will"

I agree with that description. (James 1:14)

I'm not worried about offending people(with the Gospel that is), God's gospel is meant to be offensive, I was just trying not to sound like a fool again. (Proverbs 17:8)

imo, you never did sound like a fool. The OT saints were found to be righteous by faith, just as we are today. Many scriptures bear witness to that fact. (Romans 4)

Stretching the argument further, couldn't God have then not foretold it, in order to do what's better for that man by not making him to be born, given God's foreknowledge of his own evil actions and their dire consequences?

By God's foreknowledge He could have not created man at all or He could have created man without the ability to disobey Him.
At one point God is so discouraged with man, He says that He is sorry that He even created man at all because man was so violent. But God before the foundation of the world God had a plan and a purpose for man and God's plans will not be thwarted by mere men. God will have His Kingdom, God will have His people, and the gates of hell cannot stop it.