Total depravity?

[T. E. Smith]

Calvinist doctrine focuses on the teaching of "total depravity", the T in TULIP. Here is how a typical Calvinist (Dr. Richard Phillips, What's So Great About the Doctrines of Grace?) describes "total depravity":

This is not to say that there is nothing good about us. In fact, we need to emphasize that humankind was created good, bearing the image of God... the doctrine of total depravity does not teach that men and women are "worthless"... neither does total depravity mean that little children should never be called "good boy" or "good girl". It is very possible for totally depraved sinners to do things that are in and of themselves good.

This is a negative definition (what is total depravity not?), so he cites Loraine Boettner for a positive definition:

What it does mean is that since the fall man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation.

Arthur Pink, a Calvinist (whose books I recommend), says,

The entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man's being... man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is a moral inability which paralyzes him.

Naturally, Dr. Phillips cites Romans 3, a composite set of quotations:

All, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes."

---

Arminians have not historically denied total depravity. The Five Articles of Remonstrance, advanced by Arminius' followers in 1610, emphasized

1. Conditional election
2. Unlimited atonement
3. Total depravity
4. Prevenient grace
5. Conditional perseverance of the saints

Those who know TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) will notice that each Article of Remonstrance contradicts, intentionally, all of these five points except total depravity.

Here is Wesley's thoughts on total depravity: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/sermons.v.xliv.html#v.xliv-p0.2 In short, he affirmed it.

The Methodist Quarterly Review stated:

It is not sufficiently known, we opine, that Methodists—the genuine Arminians of the present—do not entirely agree with this view of depravity. To what has been said, as being the Calvinist view of the total depravity of our nature, we do heartily assent, with the following exceptions:—First. We do not think that all men continue totally depraved until their regeneration. Secondly. We think man, under the atonement, is not, properly speaking, in a state of nature. He is not left to the unalleviated evils of total depravity. The atonement has not only secured grace for him, but a measure in him, by virtue of which he not only has moral light, but is often incited to good desires, and well-intended efforts to do what is perceived to be the divine will.

---

Many Reformed authors, including Richard Phillips, have lumped Arminianism in with semi-Pelagianism doctrine of "limited depravity." Arminius, his followers, and Wesley vehemently denied limited depravity, but most Calvinists seem to ignore this, intentionally or otherwise. So then, where is the disagreement?

The question is, what action must God take to reach humanity in its fallen, depraved state? May God grant to humanity the grace to respond to his offer of salvation that all may believe (Arminian teaching)? Or must God's grace be irresistible in order to reach humanity, making it impossible for anyone to be saved unless God first extends his irresistible grace (Calvinist teaching)? That is where the debate has historically lied.

---

Thoughts? Is the difference major, or is there no substantial difference? Does one side get it wrong? Or, is semi-Pelagianism the correct teaching on the matter?

 

[crossnote]

There definitely appears to be an inability involved…

John 6:44 KJVS
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

and in terms of outcome (Rom 1-3), a definite practical depravity.

 

[T. E. Smith]

There definitely appears to be an inability involved…

John 6:44 KJVS
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

and in terms of outcome (Rom 1-3), a definite practical depravity.

But the son draws everyone, not just the elect: John 12:32

 

[crossnote]

But the son draws everyone, not just the elect: John 12:32

True, but even not everyone who is drawn (wooed rather than dragged), responds.

helkuō=drag
John 6:44 KJVS
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (drag) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


The elect are dragged due to our depravity.

 

[T. E. Smith]

True, but even not everyone who is drawn (wooed rather than dragged), responds.

Agreed; never in the Bible is unconditional election a concept.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (drag) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

helkuō is used in John 12:32 too. Same word. Why interpret them differently? Seems to have the same meaning : people can only come to God through his drawing, and he draws everyone. Since not everyone comes to him, the drawing is clearly resistible.

 

[crossnote]

Agreed; never in the Bible is unconditional election a concept.

Abraham, an idolater was called as an idolater. What were the conditions that God chose him?

Or Jacob over Esau?

Romans 9:11-13 KJV
[11] (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) [12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[brightfame52]

True, but even not everyone who is drawn (wooed rather than dragged), responds.

helkuō=drag
John 6:44 KJVS
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (drag) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


The elect are dragged due to our depravity.

I disagree, the elect dont come to Christ in the flesh, but in the Spirit, as New Born Babes desiring the sincere milk of the word. Its the new creation that is drawn to Christ not the old man. The regenerate elect arent dragged against their will, but made willing[to come] in the day of Gods power.

 

[crossnote]

I disagree, the elect dont come to Christ in the flesh, but in the Spirit, as New Born Babes desiring the sincere milk of the word. Its the new creation that is drawn to Christ not the old man. The regenerate elect arent dragged against their will, but made willing[to come] in the day of Gods power.

True, the elect don't come to Christ in the flesh, it's actually the Spirit that first comes to man in convicting power, revealing his sin and need for a Savior.
Even after regeneration the battle rages (see Rom 7)

(Rom 7:14) For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin.
(Rom 7:15) For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate.
(Rom 7:16) However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good.
(Rom 7:17) But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.
(Rom 7:18) For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
(Rom 7:19) For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
(Rom 7:20) But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.

Unless you want to go with Wesley and argue for Christian perfectionism?

 

[brightfame52]

True, the elect don't come to Christ in the flesh, it's actually the Spirit that first comes to man in convicting power, revealing his sin and need for a Savior.
Even after regeneration the battle rages (see Rom 7)

(Rom 7:14) For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin.
(Rom 7:15) For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate.
(Rom 7:16) However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good.
(Rom 7:17) But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.
(Rom 7:18) For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
(Rom 7:19) For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
(Rom 7:20) But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.

Unless you want to go with Wesley and argue for Christian perfectionism?

The Rom 7 believer isnt in the flesh. No believer with the Spirit is in the flesh, though flesh in them Rom 8:9

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The only way a person isnt in the flesh is if they are born of the Spirit. Now the elect cant come to Christ unless born of the Spirit. One is either born of the Spirit or not, no middle ground.

 

[brightfame52]

t e smith

The question is, what action must God take to reach humanity in its fallen, depraved state?

Give Spiritual life, otherwise man is dead to God, dead in sin !

 

[Whatever]

Both Calvinists and Arminians have total depravity in their confessions.

But Arminians couldn't stand the idea that God chooses rather than man, so they invented the idea of Prevenient grace. This basically annuls total depravity and gives man back the free will choice.

I think this is a major difference and the Prevenient grace side gets it wrong.

They can say "God gets all the glory" for giving prevenient grace, but they get the glory for making the right choice that every other person getting this prevenient grace does not make.

But the son draws everyone, not just the elect: John 12:32

This use of the word "all" is usually misunderstood to always meaning "every single one" of what ever is being referred to. But it is not always used this way.

Act 10:11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.

The "all kinds" there is the same word "all" in your John passage. Here's how it looks with the King James with strongs numbers attached:
Act 10:12 WhereinG1722 G3739 wereG5225 all mannerG3956 of fourfooted beastsG5074 of theG3588 earth,G1093 andG2532 wild beasts,G2342 andG2532 creeping things,G2062 andG2532 fowlsG4071 of theG3588 air.G3772

Notice, 3956 is "all kinds of" or "all manner of" Here's your John passage.

Joh 12:32 And I,G2504 ifG1437 I be lifted upG5312 fromG1537 theG3588 earth,G1093 will drawG1670 allG3956 men untoG4314 me.G1683

So, if Jesus is drawing all kinds of men to Himself, then He gets what He draws:
Rev 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

Jesus draws all kinds of men, and in the end He ends up with a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people and language. In other words "all kinds" of men. Notice again that "all" above I have underlined, it is the same 3956. How many American Indians tribes were there in America? Do you think every single tribe will have somebody be saved? Many lived and disappeared before the Gospel ever came to America.

I better quit.

 

[Randy]

But the son draws everyone, not just the elect: John 12:32

While that is shown other testimony clearly shows it is the Father draws us to Jesus.
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

If you read John 17 you will see in regard to the gift of oneness Jesus prays only for His disciples and for those who would come to believe in Him through the gospel message not the whole world.

Jesus has purchased people for God from every nation on earth but not every person on earth will come to believe in Him.

In fact the ratio given is not good.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[brightfame52]

But the son draws everyone, not just the elect: John 12:32

The eveyone there is the elect.

 

[brightfame52]

True, but even not everyone who is drawn (wooed rather than dragged), responds.

helkuō=drag
John 6:44 KJVS
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (drag) him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


The elect are dragged due to our depravity.

I would disagree because the ones drawn in Jn 6:44 have been born of God, they are being drawn or led by the Spirit to Christ Rom 8:14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

That word led is the same as being drawed, its the power of God acting !

 

[T. E. Smith]

The eveyone there is the elect.

So "all men" now means "only some men"? The lengths Calvinists will go to!

 

[Whatever]

So "all men" now means "only some men"? The lengths Calvinists will go to!

The word "all" can mean "all without exception" or it can mean "all without distinction."

Jesus is not saying that he is going to draw every single human being who is ever going to be born.

He is going to draw men without the distinction of their being Jews or Gentiles. Paul makes this clear.

Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

The lengths non-Calvinists will go to to never let their minds be changed.

 

[Whatever]

All again.

King james
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all (3956) evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

If all means "all without exception", then the love of money must have been the cause of Adam's sin and the cause of Cain killing Abel. Wait a minute. There wasn't any money back then.

How do most modern translations do this verse?

NIV
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

NASB
10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil

New Living Translation
10 For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Yes there are a lot that leave it as simply "all" but which interpretation makes sense?

Also, the phrase "love of money" is only one word in the Greek.
In Strongs it is 5365
philarguria
From G5366; avarice: - love of money.

I looked up avarice on dictionary.com and got
insatiable greed for riches; inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth.

I cannot see any of that in Adam's sin or Cain killing Abel. So, it could not have been the root of that evil.

 

[crossnote]

That word led is the same as being drawed, its the power of God acting !

Are you sure? ἄγω -led
ἑλκύω / ἕλκω-draw

Besides, I believe Jn 6:44 is speaking of an unregenerate person whereas Rom 8:14 is speaking of the regenerate. (a difference of wills and affections.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Are you sure? ἄγω -led
ἑλκύω / ἕλκω-draw

Besides, I believe Jn 6:44 is speaking of an unregenerate person whereas Rom 8:14 is speaking of the regenerate. (a difference of wills and affections.

Agreed

 

[Whatever]

Are you sure? ἄγω -led
ἑλκύω / ἕλκω-draw

I'm not sure what word you are using when you only use the Greek font. Is it Strongs G1670 - ἑλκύω, ἕλκω

Here is an example of how the ESV uses that word:
Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?

Same thing with the NIV
6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?

New American Standard
6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?

I remember R. C. Sproul talking one time about a guy who showed where this word was used for drawing water out of a well. He said "Well Dr. Sproul, have you ever dragged water out of a well?" Sproul said "I admit that I have never dragged water out of a well, but how do you get water out of a well"? Do you stand at the top and woo the water out? Do you stand at the top and entice the water out? No, you have to force the water out with a bucket and a rope pulling it up against gravity.