Total Depravity Explained Without Reference to the Human Will

[Arial]

Ignore Revelation 21:1-6? I don't think so.

I do not think this world is going to be restored. Rather it is going to be replaced. It will not be an earthly kingdom; it will be a heavenly kingdom with Jesus.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

Well I guess the next thing on the list, is a long debate over the meaning of restored. The Bible does use the word restored regarding what awaits it---restores all things. It also calls it a new creation, which I have also called it in other posts and you still argued with me about it.

 

[Ritajanice]

The Spirit bears witness with our spirit not to our spirit.

Where did I say to?

The Spirit bears witness with our spirit....?

How did the Spirit do that, what does it mean?....how can he bear witness/ testify with our spirit?

If he bears witness with our spirit, that means he talks to our spirit as his Spirit indwells ours, do you understand that in the spirit?...or is that nonsense to you, ?

If the Spirit testifies with our spirit, then he does exactly that by divine revelation..

I’m trying to understand where you are coming from...

 

[JIM]

I asked you the question how does he do that?

How does he testify with our spirit that we are Gods children?

I’m not asking for scripture, because i’m asking you what he bears witness with our spirit and it’s spiritual meaning
.

We can all quote scripture..I’m asking you how he goes about bearing witness with our spirit ?

The Spirit bears witness with our spirit..you should be able to explain this, quoting scripture does not mean that one’s spirit is Born Again.

How does the Spirit bear witness with our spirit?

Please explain in your own words please, you should be able to give some testimony?

You have rejected nearly everything that I have said in my own words on this forum. And now you want me to give you something in my own words?

 

[JIM]

Where does the Holy Spirit bear the truth of Gods word to us?

Only the Bible?

Are you saying you only know God’s truth by reading the Bible?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[JIM]

Well I guess the next thing on the list, is a long debate over the meaning of restored. The Bible does use the word restored regarding what awaits it---restores all things. It also calls it a new creation, which I have also called it in other posts and you still argued with me about it.

Where do read about the earth being restored?

 

[Ritajanice]

Yes, absolutely.

Nope....that is not true.

You can only know God in your spirit, that’s why we must be “ Born Of The Spirit “...you must be Born Again to see the Kingdom Of God...we have spiritual eyes and ears as Born Again.

Reading the Bible does not bring your spirit Alive, only the Living Holy Spirit can do that supernatural act.

We are Born Of God’s seed.... that’s a Living Spirit birth...just as Gods word says....

 

[Ritajanice]

You have rejected nearly everything that I have said in my own words on this forum. And now you want me to give you something in my own words?

You dodge all of my spiritual questions.

Born Of The Spirit comes by divine revelation..period...now I know why I don’t understand you, as you believe divine revelation only comes by reading the word.

we are Born Of The Spirit...not the Bible..for about the 19 th time, you can’t seem to differentiate the difference between the Living Spirit and the written word.

The Living Spirit gives birth to our spirit, the written word backs up what was testified with our spirit by Gods Living witness His Living Holy Spirit.

Spirit gives birth to spirit..by divine revelation.

 

[JIM]

Nope....that is not true.

You can only know God in your spirit, that’s why we must be “ Born Of The Spirit “...

So then how can one love the Lord with all their heart, soul and mind? I know God in my mind.

We must be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. It is the believer who is born of water and Spirit.

 

[Ritajanice]

So then how can one love the Lord with all their heart, soul and mind? I know God in my mind.

We Love God because he loved us first, when he made our spirit Born Again....you can’t love God without knowing him in your spirit....

We must be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. It is the believer who is born of water and Spirit.

We must be Born Again to see the Kingdom Of God.

A Born Again has spiritual eyes and ears...you can’t know God in your mind, sorry that is nonsense, nowhere in Gods word does he say we know him in our mind only, he says we must be Born Again which is then relayed to our mind.

We love him with all our heart, our heart is our spirit, that’s where the Spirit resides in our heart/ spirit...do you understand that?

You could/ would never know how to love God without him loving us first, by His witness the Living Holy Spirit.

Gods Spirit loves us in our spirit, our spirit falls in love with the Spirit Of God.

 

[JIM]

We Love God because he loved us first, when he made our spirit Born Again....you can’t love God without knowing him in your spirit....

We must be Born Again to see the Kingdom Of God.

A Born Again has spiritual eyes and ears...you can’t know God in your mind, sorry that is nonsense, nowhere in Gods word does he say we know him in our mind only, he says we must be Born Again which is then relayed to our mind.

We love him with all our heart, our heart is our spirit, that’s where the Spirit resides in our heart/ spirit...do you understand that?

That is hilarious. And you talk to me about nonsense.

 

[Ritajanice]

That is hilarious. And you talk to me about nonsense.

Prove it then?

We are Born Of The Spirit...now prove it’s not by divine revelation?

Spirit gives birth to spirit....pretty obvious it’s by divine revelation.

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again. '

We are Born Of water, the human birth, amniotic fluid.

We must also receive the Living spirit birth...Spirit gives birth to spirit..the supernatural / spiritual birth.our spirit is brought from death into life with Jesus.

God has already spoken it’s by divine revelation...only you can’t see or hear it.

​

◄ Matthew 13:16 ►

​

Audio Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. New Living Translation “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. English Standard Version But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Berean Standard Bible But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. Berean Literal Bible But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

 

[Ritajanice]

1 Corinthians 2:10-16

King James Version

​

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Arial]

Where do read about the earth being restored?

Acts 3:19-21 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you---even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

You can go search out what was spoken by the prophets for yourself.

Rev 21:1-6; Romans 8:18-25

 

[JIM]

Acts 3:19-21 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you---even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

You can go search out what was spoken by the prophets for yourself.

Rev 21:1-6; Romans 8:18-25

I could be wrong, but I really do not think that the times of restoration is talking about the earth or this universe.

 

[Arial]

I could be wrong, but I really do not think that the times of restoration is talking about the earth or this universe.

Suit yourself.

 

[His clay]

@His clay

To further elaborate.

Recently, because of all the assertions of "free" will, I have come to nearly despise the expression. IMO it distracts from actually learning the doctrines of grace in their depth. If one adheres to a concept of "free" will to determine the doctrines of Christ---salvation---- the power and glory and grace and mercy of God in salvation is tamped down.

If one takes the time to read the arguments concerning free will by Pelagias and Augustine---and later what became known as semi-Pelagian, they will see that the arguments of Augustine against these heresies and concerning free will (for so the were declared) was of a different nature and focus than what it has become today.

The will is only free in a sense----that being that man has the God endowed ability to choose between one thing and another. As far as I am concerned, and that is just me, without casting aspersions on others, the human will only does what our desires move it to do. It only and ever can do anything good by the very grace of God. And it is bound by the transgression of Adam to also desire what is evil in the sight of God, and we act on it. Only God can change that in us. And by the very definition of "will", the very word itself, Christ's church would be far better off it never attached "free" to "will", but simply states things according to the relationship between God and mankind since the fall, and our inability to rectify the situation. That is actually what is in the doctrines of grace. They do not concern the will of man, free or otherwise, at all.

And the Bible did just fine without ever discussing the "free" will of man. That has been inserted into it.

I share your annoyance at an issue that comes between people's understanding of the doctrines of grace.

I also agree that people are only free in a sense, and that is precisely where the hang up is. I disagree that people are free to be ultimate in the sense of the ultimate cause of their own actions. I also disagree that people are free to make undetermined choices. I hold to nearly the same understanding as you; people only choose what our desires move it to do. I'm largely influenced by Jonathan Edwards in this regard and hold that people choose in accordance with their highest preference. In short, the choice is determined by one's highest preference. But since the person did/chose in according with their highest preference or desire, then it was done "freely". The person did what they wanted, and in that sense I'm fine with that kind of freedom. But when people say that a choice could have been otherwise than what it was, or a choice entails the undetermined ability to do otherwise, then I bail from an impossible position. It is logical nonsense; in contradiction with scripture, and practically unlivable. I reject libertarian freedom, but I hold to a compatibilist form of freedom.

So I wrote all that to simply say that I largely agree with a great deal of what you have pointed out. But with the positive side mentioned, I'll move toward a critique.

When I saw your thread title, and when I read the following . . .
"This is the doctrine of Total Depravity and this is where is comes from, simplified and condensed. It has nothing to do with our will---at all. It is purely by the grace of God that any can be saved."
I had a bit of an internal sigh. It is a lot like saying that I'll talk about human life, but I'll talk about and describe human life apart from any reference to the mind. I then whip out my thesaurus and utilize any other word other than "mind," but all the while I fail completely to distance my description from the "idea" of the mind. To talk about human life apart from a critical and key feature of human life is a near impossible task. Likewise, trying to avoid "the human will" while describing total depravity is a near impossible task. The idea of the will is pretty much impossible to avoid, even if your opening post avoids the word.

Note the following quote from the opening post.
"The consequence of Adam eating of that forbidden fruit, (for Eve was deceived, but Adam's eating was open rebellion) was both of them being cast out of the Garden, away from access to the tree of life, and a curse put on them and the ground. The intimate relationship between God and man was severed and through Adam as the first man, to all the rest of mankind, and even to the creation itself." The reader is noticing that you didn't mention the will of Adam and Eve, but in the end the idea of the will was presupposed. How did Adam rebel by eating? What element of his nature made the choice to do what he did? Did he make a choice to disobey, and thusly place himself in the crosshairs of promised divine judgment? Did he use his will to make the choice? So again, I point out that the wording may have been avoided, but the idea was presupposed. What is rebellion? Does rebellion involve choice? Does choice involve the will? If Adam did not use his will, was he just in autopilot then, and no decision was actually made? It is profoundly difficult if not impossible to avoid the will in any discussion involving personal responsibility for sin. And that is a critical feature of total depravity.

Test case: talk to any former husband and wife who have had a divorce over marital infidelity. Ask if the will and choice is irrelevant in the discussion. Was there never a choice made that involved sin? Was the will never used by either party that led to their divorce? Their relationship was severed due to a violation of their marital vows; they failed to "forsaking all others." Was it just raging hormones and no choice? Was selfishness not a choice that was made? Was the violation of the marital union of one man and one woman not a decision that was made at some point and time? Was the violation of the spouse's love and the trampling of that love . . . was that not a decision made by the offending party?

When I read Ephesians 2:1-3 I see a people who were dead in trespasses and sins. Sin and trespass was a realm in which they walked. They followed the course of this world and demonic powers. They lived in the passions of their flesh. Their will was to carry out the desires of the body and mind. And thusly, they were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Note the activity! Yes, they are dead in trespasses and sins, but this is a very very active deadness. It is described in terms of walking, following, living, carrying out, etc. The very idea of sinning and trespassing very often presuppose choice and the will.

So my approach is not to ignore or dodge the issue. I don't find that helpful. I think that the perceptive reader will immediately see through the attempt. The avoidance of certain words does not actually avoid the idea. So I think it is better to delve deeper into the issues and cut to the chase at where exactly the point of disagreement actually resides. Again, I reject libertarian freedom, and that simple move undercuts nearly the whole of the Arminian position. Once that false premise is destroyed and dismissed, then we can begin to speak in better, more biblical terms regarding the will, choices, and biblical freedom.

I hope that I have expressed my disagreement respectfully and clearly. Thank you for your attempt in the opening post. I realize that you took a good deal of time to write that. As always, I welcome thoughtful replies.

 

[JIM]

@His clay

To further elaborate.

Recently, because of all the assertions of "free" will, I have come to nearly despise the expression. IMO it distracts from actually learning the doctrines of grace in their depth. If one adheres to a concept of "free" will to determine the doctrines of Christ---salvation---- the power and glory and grace and mercy of God in salvation is tamped down.

If one takes the time to read the arguments concerning free will by Pelagias and Augustine---and later what became known as semi-Pelagian, they will see that the arguments of Augustine against these heresies and concerning free will (for so the were declared) was of a different nature and focus than what it has become today.

I can certainly understand why you have come to despise the expression of "free" will. It flies in the face of Calvinism and Reformed Theology. In contrast to what you said, I believe that it is in the free will of mankind that the power and glory and grace and mercy of God in salvation is magnified to the highest. It is in the Reformed version of election and reprobation that such power, glory, grace and mercy of God is tamped down.

And in the arguments of Augustine, one can see the influence of his Manicheism coming through. He could never seem to set it all behind him.

The simple truth is that without "free" will, there is no such thing as sin. Sin by definition is the result of a decision to disobey God (1 John 3:4). That was true with Adam. It is true with mankind today. There was no "fall" of mankind. Each has his own "fall" with his first sin.

The will is only free in a sense----that being that man has the God endowed ability to choose between one thing and another. As far as I am concerned, and that is just me, without casting aspersions on others, the human will only does what our desires move it to do. It only and ever can do anything good by the very grace of God. And it is bound by the transgression of Adam to also desire what is evil in the sight of God, and we act on it. Only God can change that in us. And by the very definition of "will", the very word itself, Christ's church would be far better off it never attached "free" to "will", but simply states things according to the relationship between God and mankind since the fall, and our inability to rectify the situation. That is actually what is in the doctrines of grace. They do not concern the will of man, free or otherwise, at all.

In contrast, I believe that Christ's church would be far better off if it had never introduced the concept of the "fall" with the sin of Adam. Even the idea that God would impute the sin of Adam to another, let alone the whole of mankind including the newborn, is truly repulsive. God would never do such an unjust thing. And He produced an entire chapter in Ezekiel, chapter 20, to say so. It is unfortunate that Augustine, and later Calvin, denied the very truth of that chapter in formulating his ideas about such things. Again, his Manicheism swayed his thinking.

And the Bible did just fine without ever discussing the "free" will of man. That has been inserted into it.

And even more so with the "fall". The Bible does just fine without ever discussing it. It has been inserted into it.

 

[Arial]

I hope that I have expressed my disagreement respectfully and clearly. Thank you for your attempt in the opening post. I realize that you took a good deal of time to write that. As always, I welcome thoughtful replies.

That was a fine piece of thoughtful exposition. No doubt about that.

However as a critique it falls flat in relation to the purpose of the OP. It looses sight of the purpose of the OP----which was not to discuss the inner workings of the minds as to what made Adam and Eve fall, but to but the doctrine of total depravity in its proper position so that all the other doctrines of grace follow systematically.

What the critique did was put it right back where it isn't and bring into it all the very things that are used to refute it.

Total Depravity is the name given to a doctrine. And that doctrine is not concerning the will of man. It is concerning the condition of man before God. The will of man is a whole other topic. The condition of man is what makes the U necessary, The condition of man and the necessity for election (and that election is not based on any conditions in mankind but only on God's purposes) if any are going to be saved. And election is what makes the L a reality. Since those three are true according to Scripture, and salvation is by grace, that grace must be 100% effectual. And since all those fall into place as naturally as gravity, none who God saves can be lost.

So if someone wants to argue successfully against Total Depravity they must do so without appealing to the will, free or otherwise, of man. The doctrine itself has nothing to do with the human will---it is making a statement of man's condition. To argue against it, one would have to first prove man was not in that condition.

That was the point of the OP.

 

[Mr GLee]

I can certainly understand why you have come to despise the expression of "free" will. It flies in the face of Calvinism and Reformed Theology. In contrast to what you said, I believe that it is in the free will of mankind that the power and glory and grace and mercy of God in salvation is magnified to the highest. It is in the Reformed version of election and reprobation that such power, glory, grace and mercy of God is tamped down.

I would offer.

Gods design of Free will is hard to understand to those who do not walk by faith or .understand the invisible eternal workings of God.

The apostles of little faith a portion he gives to all at first had no idea of what the daily bread of forgiveness was? Christ working in his apostles Jesus the Son of man increased empowered their new faith understanding of the invisible thing of Christ when they wondered "why he was not hungry" ??? Hid from human will .

John 4:33-35King James Version Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Free will food.. . . God is not the author of confusion.

"Let there be "created the "will of men" under the letter of the law (death) not subject to change .The loving commandment. Thou shall not or you are deader than a door nail.

The dead flesh return to dust and temporal spirit given under the letter return the Holy father of all spirit life .Needed In order to understand he who is invisible is.

Freely he gives his understanding as it is written, freely we have received it And it "was very good". The two course meal . . (1). to will find the lock and (2) power to turn fish the work spoon feed it working to the good pleasure of the master chef Christ the husband.

The gospel key that's locks the gates of hell both. First to find the lock to reveal the will and power to turn the key to finish

I would call it the "both key" or finger of God's power, glory, grace and mercy that raises the dead to new born again spirit life with a living hope beyond the grave (What the eyes see the temporal dying.

An Older hymn.

God is Love having the power to exercises his love in those called to represent His living words.

The hymn .Love lifted me . . .love lifted me. . . when nothing could help . . .love lifted me .

I dont think His mercy seasoned with his grace tamped down


Philipian 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

 

[JIM]

So if someone wants to argue successfully against Total Depravity they must do so without appealing to the will, free or otherwise, of man. The doctrine itself has nothing to do with the human will---it is making a statement of man's condition. To argue against it, one would have to first prove man was not in that condition.

That was the point of the OP.

I don't quite understand how you can separate the doctrine of Total Depravity from the free will of man. The doctrine is an absolute denial of the free will of man. I do agree however that the argument against Total Depravity needs to be done without appealing to the free will. That, it seems to me, is rather straightforward. Total Depravity a doctrine which establishes a condition imposed upon God's creation, man. There is no rational way to argue that such a condition could come about through any other than God, Himself. It was not in the power of Adam to do it, nor in the power of Satan to do it, nor in the power of any other to do it. So, if it is true, then it is true by God's own hand. The Bible never says that God caused Total Depravity. And in fact it states just the opposite in Ezekiel, Chapter 18. Thus, it is a false doctrine.