The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[Deborah13]

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?

Yes, if it's in the contract, it's in the contract.
Where are you going with this, it sounds interesting......

Consider this, within the contract it says that this lack of helmet violation of the contract has a remedy, though temporary. For this violation the contractor will pay the owner a penalty protecting the contractor from immediate dismissal, for breaking the contract.

 

[ivdavid]

Where are you going with this, it sounds interesting......

Oh..I'm just trying to give an explanation of how I believe the doctrine of total depravity is true..

Inference 1: This is derived from what we just discussed - that not just in totality, but violation of any single part of the law during the successful performing of another part of the law still constitutes that action to be a transgression of the law.

Inference 2: I'm trying to derive this from the discussion being carried out in post#78 - that "good" ought not to be defined based on the benefit it results in but on whether it is right before God. (This is an issue in our language which uses the same word 'good' in the context of morality - good action vs evil action - as well as in amoral contexts - good handwriting vs bad handwriting). And what is right before God is essentially any action that does not transgress His will.

Fact 1: In the context of morality, God revealed His will in the OT through the mosaic law and revealed the spiritual significance of the same through His spiritual law(Law of Christ) in the NT.

Fact 2: Sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jn 3:4)

Fact 3: To agape-love God is one of the commandments of the law as per God's unchanging will.

Inference 3: (yet to be discussed from post#65) Since the unbeliever, by definition, has not faith - he does not and cannot, by definition, agape-love God until he comes to faith.

Inference 4: This combines the above points to infer that the unbeliever transgresses the law continually until he comes to faith and begins to agape-love God in Christ.

Inference 5: (not yet begun discussing, but that which I think is obvious) An unbeliever is in the flesh until he comes to faith and is reborn in the spirit.

Conclusion: (from Inferences 4,5) Man in the flesh can never be subject to the law of God in any action of his until he comes to faith in the spirit. Which is total depravity or total inability as I believe it, further affirmed in Rom 8:7. Considering above Inferences 1,2, the same could be rephrased as - man in the flesh can never do good in the sight of God in any action of his until he comes to faith in the spirit.

Please tell me if you feel something is wrongly inferred or if something needs to be clarified.

Edit 1: added Links to the earlier posts referred here.

 

[Deborah13]

Inference 1: This is derived from what we just discussed - that not just in totality, but violation of any single part of the law during the successful performing of another part of the law still constitutes that action to be a transgression of the law.

Assuming that you are still speaking of the Law of Moses as a covenant, yes.

Inference 2: I'm trying to derive this from the discussion being carried out in post#78 - that "good" ought not to be defined based on the benefit it results in but on whether it is right before God. (This is an issue in our language which uses the same word 'good' in the context of morality - good action vs evil action - as well as in amoral contexts - good handwriting vs bad handwriting). And what is right before God is essentially any action that does not transgress His will.

Agreed.

Fact 1: In the context of morality, God revealed His will in the OT through the mosaic law and revealed the spiritual significance of the same through His spiritual law(Law of Christ) in the NT.

I agree that the old covenant was God's will for the children of Israel. However, Jesus revealed the correct understanding of those moral laws. God allowed things in Moses Law that are not allowed under the new covenant. Such as polygamy and buying and selling people.

Fact 2: Sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jn 3:4)

Sin is lawlessness, assuming that you are speaking of unbelievers.

Fact 3: To agape-love God is one of the commandments of the law as per God's unchanging will.

If one does not love God, one does not know God and therefore, is in sin and lawless.

Inference 3: (yet to be discussed from post#65) Since the unbeliever, by definition, has not faith - he does not and cannot, by definition, agape-love God until he comes to faith.

Agreed.

Inference 4: This combines the above points to infer that the unbeliever transgresses the law continually until he comes to faith and begins to agape-love God in Christ.

Agreed.

Inference 5: (not yet begun discussing, but that which I think is obvious) An unbeliever is in the flesh until he comes to faith and is reborn in the spirit.

Agreed.

 

[The_Epsicle]

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?

Of course he could've not foretold it, but then we wouldn't be saved because Jesus would've never been betrayed.

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.

You did good unintentionally, however just like in the Law where if you were to kill someone unintentionally you would not be held responsible:

“This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past—as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live," - Deuteronomy 19:4-5 ESV

Your intention to kill him damns you even though you were unsuccessful.

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." - 1 John 3:15 ESV

I'm curious as to your intention here, are you trying to show me that predestination to hell is not true? Because I already believe that.

 

[ivdavid]

Assuming that you are still speaking of the Law of Moses as a covenant, yes.

Since there's ambiguity here, let me clarify what I mean whenever I refer to the term 'law' - that way you could simply read without going through the trouble of constructing assumptions. Kindly bear with the slightly long post.

There are at least 3 usages of the word 'law' in scriptures -
Usage 1: In Matthew 5:17, it denotes the first 5 Books of the OT Scripture.
Usage 2: In Rom 13:10, it refers to the set of commandments given by Moses as seen from the preceding Rom 13:9.
Usage 3: In Rom 3:27, it refers to a single governing principle such as a "law" of gravity etc.

So when Paul declares we are no longer under the 'law'(Rom 6:14), he couldn't be meaning Usage 1 - for Scripture cannot be relegated.

Given his constant exhortation against following the OT commandments such as circumcision in Galatians etc. (Gal 5:3), we might be inclined to think he means Usage 2 - but that throws problems as well. Paul does refer to several OT commandments to be followed even now(Rom 13:9) and Acts 16:3 has Paul circumcising Timothy - which shows that the commandments themselves are not the issue - but as you said earlier, that depending on them for justification is the issue.

Which leads us to Usage 3 - that which is confirmed in Paul singling out 1 single principle in the OT to capture the entire concept of justification by the law - Lev 18:5. This is seen in him contrasting the "righteousness which is of the law" and the "righteousness which is of faith" by referring to this single principle in Rom 10:5. Again, the same contrast is done in similar fashion in Gal 3:12.

Hence, this Lev 18:5 is what he refers to as the "law of works" - which basically amounts to any variant of "I believe if I do a certain set of commandments, then I shall be justified/deemed righteous unto life in my having worked these".

So, whenever I refer to the "law" as being against it, it's simply this Lev 18:5 Law of works. I now can freely say I am no longer under the law(Usage 3) while still upholding the holiness of the spiritual set of commandments(Usage 2).

And this law of works is applicable even today, and even among the non-jews - for what are concepts such as 'karma' if not a variant of Lev 18:5. Which is why Galatians and related texts are still relevant today. As an aside, I believe a lot of people in the church pews today hold a variant of this in their hearts where they believe it would be because of their 'work' in believing or repenting that they will be saved.

However, Jesus revealed the correct understanding of those moral laws. God allowed things in Moses Law that are not allowed under the new covenant.

True. Which is why I believe that the Law(Usage 2) is now revealed Spiritually. Also, this Law of Christ is the law of liberty - not in that it permits us to forsake certain commandments, but in that it simplifies it into the royal laws to Love. In the OT, each had studied all the 613 commandments(?), and yet were diligent to ask one another and the teachers of the law if any act of theirs was in violation of any of the commandments. But what was the purpose or final end(1Tim 1:5) of any of these commandments(Usage 2 law) - to get us to Love and to show us through all our transgressions how we need a Saviour to get round to such Love.

But once we are in Christ, we do not need to be taught of one another(Jer 31:34) - God's law(Usage 2) is written in our hearts(Jer 31:33) - and it is God who causes us to walk in them(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13). We simply need to love and in that be assured we are not transgressors of any commandments of God. No burden of fearful checking against several checklists now. (Edit: ) And we love not in order to merit salvation - we love just because that's who we are in Christ.

 

[ivdavid]

You did good unintentionally...
Your intention to kill him damns you even though you were unsuccessful.

I agree with your overall point. I'm just discussing semantics here - If my intention was evil, and if my intended act was unsuccessful, then you should not be saying that "I did good" at all.

Of course, the end result is beneficial in that it contains no harm - but that's where we need to differentiate between beneficial-harmful results and good-evil acts. I have sinned in my heart and how can I have done good in my sin.

 

[The_Epsicle]

Since there's ambiguity here, let me clarify what I mean whenever I refer to the term 'law' - that way you could simply read without going through the trouble of constructing assumptions. Kindly bear with the slightly long post.

There are at least 3 usages of the word 'law' in scriptures -
Usage 1: In Matthew 5:17, it denotes the first 5 Books of the OT Scripture.
Usage 2: In Rom 13:10, it refers to the set of commandments given by Moses as seen from the preceding Rom 13:9.
Usage 3: In Rom 3:27, it refers to a single governing principle such as a "law" of gravity etc.

There are two laws, Moral Law(don't kill, steal, commit adultery, ext...), and Levitical Law(don't eat pork, don't wear two fabrics of blended color, ext...). When Christ says he has come to fulfill the Law he is referring to Levitical Law, since it was just a foreshadowing of Christ. So we are no longer under the Levitical Law and committing the things described therein no longer are Sin because the promise of a Messiah has been fulfilled and we no longer need to look forward to another. Some of the things in the Moral and Levitical Law overlap such as homosexuality and that is why it is not a Sin against the Levitical Law to commit a homosexual act but it is still a Sin against the Moral Law. I think there are only two definitions of "Law" in the Bible

1.Commandments
2.A governing principle

I agree with your overall point. I'm just discussing semantics here - If my intention was evil, and if my intended act was unsuccessful, then you should not be saying that "I did good" at all.

Of course, the end result is beneficial in that it contains no harm - but that's where we need to differentiate between beneficial-harmful results and good-evil acts. I have sinned in my heart and how can I have done good in my sin.

Ah, but it wasn't you who did the good from your Sin, allow me to clarify. God is a very powerful God and while he doesn't make people Sin he can cause good things to come from Sin. As an example from my own life: one of my friends is an awesome person, very kind, very loving, and overall a godly Christian women, but she was the result of her parents hooking up at 16 and 17 and her mother almost killed her through abortion, but she didn't and now this woman who was conceived as result of adultery has had a large influence on my life. So something good(my friend) came from something evil(adultery) but the parents did not do good by committing adultery rather God made something good come from their adultery, and I'm glad He did. In the same way you didn't do good but God made something good happen through your (fictional) evil intent.

 

[Deborah13]

But once we are in Christ, we do not need to be taught of one another(Jer 31:34) - God's law(Usage 2) is written in our hearts(Jer 31:33) - and it is God who causes us to walk in them(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13). We simply need to love and in that be assured we are not transgressors of any commandments of God. No burden of fearful checking against several checklists now. (Edit: ) And we love not in order to merit salvation - we love just because that's who we are in Christ.

I understand what you are saying.

 

[ivdavid]

..are you trying to show me that predestination to hell is not true? Because I already believe that.

I know. I'm simply trying to show that semantics plays a role in people expressing their beliefs on such doctrines. It's not very important to me though that we discuss this - so drop it whenever you feel like it.

You said you believed some are predestined to eternal life. Let's call this group the Elect. And let's call the others the Non-Elect. And God has promised to save the Elect - we'll call all those who're finally saved the Mercy group and the rest as the Reprobate group. Is it your belief that some of the Non-Elect do eventually make their way into the Mercy group apart from God's initial single predestination? If not, isn't it mathematically valid to equate Elect=Mercy Group and Non-Elect=Reprobate Group?

Again, I'm just saying that those professing double predestination mean it in the above sense - and not in the sense of God maliciously plotting to destroy some for the very sake of destroying them (Read their perspective here to stay unbiased). As for myself, I now embrace single predestination in effect because I believe not making a choice to include is quite different from making a choice to exclude. Doesn't mean I'll conclude those holding on to double predestination are malicious or arrogant.

 

[ivdavid]

In the same way you didn't do good but God made something good happen through your (fictional) evil intent.

Right. I'll be content that you've now declared I didn't do good. But my earlier point over semantics still stands -

Oxford Learner's:
Good(7) - morally right; behaving in a way that is morally right. (Biblically, moral right is that which does not transgress God's will.)
Good(12) - having a useful or helpful effect on somebody/something.

You don't seem to be distinguishing between the two "good"s in your statement. If you are already, ignore this post. If not, you ought to be agreeing with this - "In the same way you didn't do good(7) but God made something good(12) happen through your (fictional) evil intent."

Usually I don't get stuck over these - but in the context of total depravity, it is important to be accurate in our semantics. For instance, I'd make a statement such as "unbelievers can do no good(7)" - and people would lash out at me with various instances of how unbelievers are doing good(12), which I myself agree with - and all we'd be doing is be discussing apples and oranges.

 

[Deborah13]

(Read their perspective here to stay unbiased). As for myself, I now embrace single predestination in effect because I believe not making a choice to include is quite different from making a choice to exclude.

In order to accept that God predestines people to salvation but not condemnation is within Total Depravity. If man is so totally depraved that he is incapable of knowing that there is a God and seeking that God, then it is God who has allowed that to be the case.
But Romans 1:17-32 tells us that is not true.

Hear Job.....
Job 32:8 Surely a spirit is in man, And the breath of the Mighty One Doth cause them to understand.

Ah the breath of God.....breathed into man a spirit, to cause them to understand. One must harden themselves against God in order to reject Him.

 

[Malachi]

Also note what is stated in John 1:4,5,9:
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not... That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

What this tells us is (a) every human being has a conscience, and (b) every human being has at least one opportunity to turn to God and to Christ. That is why God says that all are "without excuse" (Rom 1:20).

 

[ivdavid]

If man is so totally depraved that he is incapable of knowing that there is a God and seeking that God, then it is God who has allowed that to be the case.

I have 2 points to discuss over this -
Firstly, could you explain why God is to be blamed for allowing/permitting the effects of Sin whatever they may be, when He has not directly/indirectly caused Sin itself. And I would differentiate between capacity and ability here - God created man with the capacity to know God and seek Him and obey Him...Sin in the flesh renders man unable to use that capacity.

Secondly and consequently, I do not believe total depravity implies man is "incapable of knowing that there is a God". In fact, I believe every single person knows enough and more about God and still willfully chooses to resist Him and ignore such knowledge as long as he's in sinful flesh. Isn't there a difference between me saying I am blind and cannot see the beauty of nature before me - and me saying I have eyes to see it but am blinded by my own lusts to look in the opposite direction always and not even want to seek it at all?

Inference 4: This combines the above points to infer that the unbeliever transgresses the law continually until he comes to faith and begins to agape-love God in Christ.
Inference 5: (not yet begun discussing, but that which I think is obvious) An unbeliever is in the flesh until he comes to faith and is reborn in the spirit.

Agreed.

This is Total Depravity according to me - that man in the flesh continually transgresses God's will until coming to faith and loving God in Christ. Are you still "Agreed" on this?

What this tells us is (a) every human being has a conscience, and (b) every human being has at least one opportunity to turn to God and to Christ.

I believe these too. I'm even willing to state that each one has multiple opportunities provided by God to do so. Total depravity doesn't deny these - it just states that man in the flesh, consciously and willingly chooses to reject all such opportunities because his sinful inclinations are in enmity with God.

 

[Malachi]

Total depravity doesn't deny these - it just states that man in the flesh, consciously and willingly chooses to reject all such opportunities because his sinful inclinations are in enmity with God.

Which brings us to the order in which salvation occurs. Those who teach Reformed Total Depravity also teach that the sinner must be regenerated FIRST and then he or she will believe. Scripture teaches that sinners must first repent and believe, and then they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and be regenerated by His power (Tit 3:4-7).

 

[ivdavid]

Which brings us to the order in which salvation occurs.

Wait, so are you saying you don't have any issues with Total Depravity itself thus far, as long as it doesn't contradict any other part of Scripture? If not, let's just finish discussing the specific contentious points of the doctrine itself before discussing its harmony.

Scripture teaches that sinners must first repent and believe, and then they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and be regenerated by His power (Tit 3:4-7).

The passage you referred doesn't place the sequence of repentance and belief in it at all - could you refer another passage which conclusively contradicts the reformed position?
Actually, instead of diving into texts which most probably would back both our positions, could we discuss the WHY we each believe the order of salvation must be a certain way.

 

[Deborah13]

Firstly, could you explain why God is to be blamed for allowing/permitting the effects of Sin whatever they may be, when He has not directly/indirectly caused Sin itself. And I would differentiate between capacity and ability here - God created man with the capacity to know God and seek Him and obey Him...Sin in the flesh renders man unable to use that capacity.

I never said God was the cause of sin, never do I believe that is the case. Man chooses to sin.
However, if God created man without the ability to know Him and seek Him, then it would have been caused by God. But God Himself says that is not the case at all. God says that man did know Him. But chose to leave Him and worship idols. It got so bad that Noah and his family were the only ones left who weren't in idolatry.
Did you say that God doesn't allow sin?

Secondly and consequently, I do not believe total depravity implies man is "incapable of knowing that there is a God". In fact, I believe every single person knows enough and more about God and still willfully chooses to resist Him and ignore such knowledge as long as he's in sinful flesh. Isn't there a difference between me saying I am blind and cannot see the beauty of nature before me - and me saying I have eyes to see it but am blinded by my own lusts to look in the opposite direction always and not even want to seek it at all?

I would agree that man cannot believe the Gospel message without the Holy Spirit's prompting, which is by God's grace and mercy. I can tell you from experience that a little knowledge that there is a God, He is the only God, that He had a Son named Jesus, and to know some of the stories from the OT, can cause a person to seek Him out. But it takes God's intervention for that knowledge to be of any use towards salvation.
Act 17:30 the times, indeed, therefore, of the ignorance God having overlooked, doth now command all men everywhere to repent.
Which come first repentance or regeneration?
Is God commanding all men to repent but not providing all men with regeneration so that they can repent?
That would be like me telling a child to eat their bread but not giving them any bread to eat.

 

[WIP]

This thread, while remaining quite civil, thank you for that by the way, has been straying from the forum guidelines quite a bit. Please, let's present the Scripture to support our arguments and statements rather than just our own opinions.

Thank you.

 

[The_Epsicle]

This thread, while remaining quite civil, thank you for that by the way, has been straying from the forum guidelines quite a bit. Please, let's present the Scripture to support our arguments and statements rather than just our own opinions.

Thank you.

Sure thing! Thanks for not closing us down, I'm enjoying this discussion very much even if I've put my foot in my mouth more than once!

Building upon Deborah's post, God's intervention comes through his means of Grace which include the following:

1. The word of God either written or spoken(Matthew 7:24, John 3:16-21, John 5:24, 1 Corinthians 1:18, James 1:21, Matthew 18:20)
2. The true body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:14-20, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:22)
3. Baptism (Matthew 28:16-20, 1 Peter 3:21, Hebrews 10:22, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:4)

An unbeliever can have a intervention by the Holy Spirit from a believer since the believer has the Holy Spirit living inside of them(Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16, Romans 8:26), and since God works through the Word even when a song meant to attack Christianity like "Same Love" by Macklemore uses scripture in the song(1 Corinthians 13), the Word of God is being proclaimed. I can attest to this because a coworker of mine(bless her heart) got a tattoo that says "Love is patient, love is kind." believing Macklemore was the author of those words, she showed me this tattoo when we were having lunch and I had my Bible on hand so I showed her the verse and we discussed a lot of 1 Corinthians. So even though Macklemore intended it to be a slam, that song helped turn someone from Death to Life.

That's all I've got for now.

 

[ivdavid]

However, if God created man without the ability to know Him and seek Him, then it would have been caused by God.

Agreed. And the doctrine of Total Depravity does not anywhere state that God created man so - God created man with the capacity to know and seek Him - it is Sin in the flesh that renders man unable to use that God-given capacity to know and seek Him. Hence, Rom 3:11-12. So again, why must God be blamed for man's inability caused by Sin in the flesh?

To understand your belief-system better, is it that you don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and Federal Headship of Adam - that all of us are born in sinful flesh itself as a consequence of Sin entering the world through Adam?

I would agree that man cannot believe the Gospel message without the Holy Spirit's prompting, which is by God's grace and mercy.

If you ask the question - Why cannot man believe the Gospel message without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, you'll get Total Depravity as the answer. I suppose we do differ in our beliefs on what the nature of this intervention is (prompting to you, regeneration to me) - but what is the reason man cannot of his own accord obey God's command to repent and believe in the Gospel? As a secondary point, is God unjust if He so chooses not to show forth His grace and mercy to us?

 

[ivdavid]

Is God commanding all men to repent but not providing all men with regeneration so that they can repent?

This is why the OP put forth the same question - and I thought we concluded in post36 that God is still just when He requires the impossible of man as long as He is not the cause of setting the impossibility. In this case, God withholding His regenerative work is not what makes man unable to repent - it is Sin in him that renders him unable to do what God anyway has endowed him with the capacity to do. Regeneration is God showing mercy in causing man to do what he himself ought to have done (Eze 18:31).

That would be like me telling a child to eat their bread but not giving them any bread to eat.

. When you set up an innocent child who cannot provide for its own sustenance being denied that which is morally due it, anything I say after that would amount to nothing. But that's not what we're talking about, are we? Isn't it more like me telling a stoned addict to come to me for rehabilitative work, but not detoxifying him until he comes?