Total Depravity Explained Without Reference to the Human Will

[Arial]

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

It is not a denial of the will of man in making decisions. The question of free is a whole other discussion. Total depravity is its own doctrine and is not dealing with the issues of the will, but with the condition of man before God. That is what I am saying. The reason you cannot understand it is because you deny the imputed sin of Adam. And I think you deny that because you do not understand the doctrine of imputed sin. I say that because you always describe it as God being responsible for man's sin if it were true. As though we were judged by Adam's sin and not our own. But it may interest you to know that most of Christianity (in a post modern era) affirms total depravity and also man's free will. Where those who do, do so, it is with election where they vere off course (my opinion.)

I have also come to believe that the reason both these views (and many others ) are a result of all doctrine other than "Jesus died for our sins", the virgin birth, and the Trinity (though it is seldom discussed in my experience anyway) have been absent from the modern church for over a century. The foundation was ignored and great weakness has occurred.

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.

That depends on what you mean by "imposed" and "rational." The very existence of God is irrational if it is being measured from a horizontal, utterly human, perspective.

To say that God imposed it upon mankind is to say he makes them sin and that he made Adam sin. That he forced him to sin. In which you violate your own argument against free will by saying it applies to the wrongness of one thing (Total Depravity)but the rightness of the other thing (no total depravity.)

Total depravity in no way states or claims that God imposed anything on Adam. And there is so much involved in this doctrinally from within the Scripture, most of which you also do not believe, that to present it to you would be next to impossible and certainly unfruitful. One can never prove to another (doctrinally speaking) something they flat out deny. People can only offer the words anyway, it is God who opens eyes to see. And when a blindfold is being worn, it is intentional to some degree. So I will just tell you what they are. Federal headship of both Adam and Jesus. The covenant of redemption existing within the Godhead before creation. The hidden purposes of God. (Which may look bad from the horizontal perspective, but which in God are perfect. IOW we only see one side of that story and there are places in our own limited abilities to understand where we set aside our perspective and in faith rest on the perfection and goodness of God.)

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.

It was in the power of Satan to bring the temptation to Adam and Eve, but only because God did not restrain him from doing so. But it was not God's hand that did that. It did happen and free will or no free will, since it happened, in spite of your assertion that the doctrine of total depravity makes God responsible for man's sin and not man himself, so does the doctrine of free will. DId God have the power to stop it from happening? Then why didn't he? The Bible never says God caused total depravity and neither does the doctrine of total depravity. The Bible and the doctrine say it exists. Remember, this thing about free will is not a part of that doctrine. Free will is an argument against election. Total depravity is dealing with the result of what happens in the Garden of Eden. The free will argument is an argument that if man cannot choose Christ of his own free will, then God is unfair, unjust, evil and the source of evil. Which, truth be told, is the very essence of what happened IN the Garden of Eden.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

Total Depravity from the free will of man. Not if it is of the will of Christ our first love Freely giving us his hearing who is invisible . He has no need for us to wonder and make up our mind . He softens our new hearts

JOB23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him

Jacob tried the wrestle him for the power of will will . Third round

 

[Arial]

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.

You understand wrong because that is not the reason. The reason is because to attach the word "free" in any way, shape, or form to mankind in his relationship to God, is to raise man up and bring God down in that relationship. As though God has any obligation to mankind other than what by grace he promises. As though he did not create mankind in his image and likeness for the very implicit command to live and choose, and act, and think according to his image and likeness. Calvinism and Reformed theology at this point have nothing to do with it.

Also, the will by definition is never free. Man makes choices, absolutely. But he does what he does, never what he doesn't do. He cannot do what he does not do. He is not free to do what he does not do. If we believe what the Bible says about the condition of mankind---that God is the enemy to all those wants and desires and sinful choices, and not only that, but we as sinners are enemies of Him and his holiness and righteousness. That even the good things man does, the righteous choices he makes are still tainted with the fact that he also sins. His good deeds never reconcile him to God. He may want to do some good things, and those also are motivated by self interest, but he does not want to surrender all of his deeds, and thoughts, and actions to God. So he doesn't. And he cannot do what he doesn't do.

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.

How so? In the first it has God subservient to the will of mankind in salvation. In spite of the fact that he sent his Son to suffer and die in order reconcile the sinner with him. It makes the work of Christ dependent solely on mankind for being effectual---which as the Bible and evidence shows, was mostly a wasted life and death on the part of the Savior who stood in the place of man. In the second, everything about the person and work has a specific goal and 100% accomplishes it. It is every bit of it God's purpose, God's plan, God's accomplishment. ALL the glory goes to God and God alone.

The first is a horizontal view of mankind and of redemption that, if you observe closely, is defining what is right and good for God according to one' s own standards, and shaping him from that. And then from that view, establishing doctrinal belief. That is not the correct way to do it. We start and stick with God's own revealing of Himself in the word.

 

[Arial]

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.

That is nonsense. Sin isn't a thing that exists. Sin is an action. If there is a standard of holiness that is established as there was when man was created in God's image and likeness, and a command is given to not do something, as there was, and man is a being who like God is a rational being (which implies one who makes choices, but in no way proclaims them free (by definition of will they are not); then it becomes possible for man to desire what was commanded against and do it. The act of doing it is sin. He was not compelled to do it---he was commanded not to do it, but he did it anyway. The disastrous results are evidence that he was not free to do it.

There was no "fall" of mankind. Each has his own "fall" with his first sin.

When a person makes such a claim, I wonder why they cannot see the chaos in God's order that would cause.

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.

You need to clearly state what it is you think the doctrine of imputation is----both regarding Adam and regarding the imputation of our sin to Christ.

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

The fall is the whole basis for the need of redemption. The story of redemption that is carried on every page of Scripture to the last word in Revelation is founded on the fall of mankind and the work of Jesus that undoes it.

 

[JIM]

The fall is the whole basis for the need of redemption. The story of redemption that is carried on every page of Scripture to the last word in Revelation is founded on the fall of mankind and the work of Jesus that undoes it.

I will start at the end of your posts and then perhaps come back for what you posted before this.

The story of redemption is indeed pervasive throughout the scriptures. However, the "fall" as I perceive you defining it is not the whole basis for the need of redemption. We do not need to be redeemed from anything Adam did or didn't do. You need to be redeemed from your "fall". Your "fall" occurred when you first sinned. Before that you didn't need to be redeemed. I need to be redeemed from my "fall". My "fall" occurred when I first sinned. Before that I didn't need to be redeemed. No one ever needs to be redeemed from what anyone else as done.

I understand, I think, what you intend by the "fall". It is false.

 

[Arial]

I will start at the end of your posts and then perhaps come back for what you posted before this.

The story of redemption is indeed pervasive throughout the scriptures. However, the "fall" as I perceive you defining it is not the whole basis for the need of redemption. We do not need to be redeemed from anything Adam did or didn't do. You need to be redeemed from your "fall". Your "fall" occurred when you first sinned. Before that you didn't need to be redeemed. I need to be redeemed from my "fall". My "fall" occurred when I first sinned. Before that I didn't need to be redeemed. No one ever needs to be redeemed from what anyone else as done.

I understand, I think, what you intend by the "fall". It is false.

I can't make you understand it. I can't make your see it. I can't make you believe it. You would think the Bible would, especially since you claim that even a non believer can read the Bible in an unregenerate state (what Paul calls the natural man) and understand it enough to believe it.

It is not that Adam makes us sin. That is not what his sin imputed to us means. It does not mean that we are being redeemed from Adam's sin. Adam stood, by God's decree, as the representative of all mankind. That is what he is referred to often in Scripture as the first Adam rather than simply the first man. Man became as their father Adam became. Adam became a sinner. As a result he begets, his sons beget, their sons beget, and so on, men who are sinners. Mankind is a being that sins.

What Jesus came to do and did, was make it possible for mankind to get back into the Garden, so to speak, with God, and access to the tree of life. And in fact, I believe that the tree of life represents Christ. We see it show up again at the end of Revelation. Man's natural condition is to sin. What Jesus had to do was not only atone for our sins but utterly destroy sin and its resultant death. He destroyed them. He took away their power on the cross. Sin can no longer condemn the believer and though we will still die, death cannot hold us. We will be raised to life, just as the One in who we are, was raised to life.

 

[JIM]

I can't make you understand it. I can't make your see it. I can't make you believe it. You would think the Bible would, especially since you claim that even a non believer can read the Bible in an unregenerate state (what Paul calls the natural man) and understand it enough to believe it.

I don't think you understand it. You misunderstand 1 Corinthians 2:14, but I won't go there now.

It is not that Adam makes us sin. That is not what his sin imputed to us means. It does not mean that we are being redeemed from Adam's sin. Adam stood, by God's decree, as the representative of all mankind. That is what he is referred to often in Scripture as the first Adam rather than simply the first man. Man became as their father Adam became. Adam became a sinner. As a result he begets, his sons beget, their sons beget, and so on, men who are sinners. Mankind is a being that sins.

No, not quite true. Adam did become a sinner. He begets, his sons beget, their sons beget, and so on, not men who are sinners, but rather men who, like Adam, become sinners. How did Adam become a sinner? He did it by disobeying god. he chose to disobey God. And we just like Adam, at some point in our lives chose to disobey God. In doing so we became sinners. Until Adam sinned, he was not a sinner. The instant he sinned he became a sinner. And all of mankind is the same. Until one sins, he is not a sinner. The instant he sins he becomes a sinner. The distinction is absolutely significant and absolutely important. Only our own disobedience, lawlessness, is imputed as sin to us.

What Jesus came to do and did, was make it possible for mankind to get back into the Garden, so to speak, with God, and access to the tree of life. And in fact, I believe that the tree of life represents Christ. We see it show up again at the end of Revelation. Man's natural condition is to sin. What Jesus had to do was not only atone for our sins but utterly destroy sin and its resultant death. He destroyed them. He took away their power on the cross. Sin can no longer condemn the believer and though we will still die, death cannot hold us. We will be raised to life, just as the One in who we are, was raised to life.

I can go with most of that. My differences in that are small.

 

[Red Baker]

........They still had the image and likeness of God with which they were created.....................God and man stand as enemies, not friends.

Dear sister, a couple of points I would offer to your good post.

Adam and Even lost the image of God, to sin and the devil who deceived Eve, and as you said, ~ Adam sinned with his eyes open, which is even worse. They lost the power to have spiritual wisdom, knowledge and understanding which they were created with. This adds to their depravity.

Also, they just did not become God's enemy, it is much more worse than just being God's enemy~they became at enmity against God! Man and God being at war against each other! Enmity means intense hostility. This adds to their depravity. But, it did not stop with them, their posterity after them have the same image as they become after their sin.

Genesis 5:3~“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”​

Seth was not born with God's image, but the image of Adam after he sinned, which image is void of God's image, in knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

 

[Mr GLee]

Dear sister, a couple of points I would offer to your good post.

Adam and Even lost the image of God, to sin and the devil who deceived Eve, and as you said, ~ Adam sinned with his eyes open, which is even worse. They lost the power to have spiritual wisdom, knowledge and understanding which they were created with. This adds to their depravity.

Also, they just did not become God's enemy, it is much more worse than just being God's enemy~they became at enmity against God! Man and God being at war against each other! Enmity means intense hostility. This adds to their depravity. But, it did not stop with them, their posterity after them have the same image as they become after their sin.

Genesis 5:3~“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”​

Seth was not born with God's image, but the image of Adam after he sinned, which image is void of God's image, in knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

Yes corruption(death) came. . they lost innocence (the image ).

 

[JIM]

Dear sister, a couple of points I would offer to your good post.

Adam and Even lost the image of God, to sin and the devil who deceived Eve, and as you said, ~ Adam sinned with his eyes open, which is even worse. They lost the power to have spiritual wisdom, knowledge and understanding which they were created with. This adds to their depravity.

Also, they just did not become God's enemy, it is much more worse than just being God's enemy~they became at enmity against God! Man and God being at war against each other! Enmity means intense hostility. This adds to their depravity. But, it did not stop with them, their posterity after them have the same image as they become after their sin.

Genesis 5:3~“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”​

Seth was not born with God's image, but the image of Adam after he sinned, which image is void of God's image, in knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

The image of God in which Adam was created was in his spirit, not in his flesh. The image of Adam in which his son was born was in his flesh, not in his spirit.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The spirit of man is not a product of procreation. The spirit of man is a product of God, Himself. Traducianism is absolute heresy.

 

[Arial]

Dear sister, a couple of points I would offer to your good post.

Adam and Even lost the image of God, to sin and the devil who deceived Eve, and as you said, ~ Adam sinned with his eyes open, which is even worse. They lost the power to have spiritual wisdom, knowledge and understanding which they were created with. This adds to their depravity.

Also, they just did not become God's enemy, it is much more worse than just being God's enemy~they became at enmity against God! Man and God being at war against each other! Enmity means intense hostility. This adds to their depravity. But, it did not stop with them, their posterity after them have the same image as they become after their sin.

Genesis 5:3~“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”​

Seth was not born with God's image, but the image of Adam after he sinned, which image is void of God's image, in knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

To be clear, I do not think that mankind after Adam still bears the image and likeness of God morally. But they were still created with it as the creature man, and it is still demanded of them. I think this image and likeness is not only moral but also in that he is in many ways similar to God but in no way exactly like Him.

 

[JIM]

To be clear, I do not think that mankind after Adam still bears the image and likeness of God morally. But they were still created with it as the creature man, and it is still demanded of them. I think this image and likeness is not only moral but also in that he is in many ways similar to God but in no way exactly like Him.

Adam was not exactly like God initially. In fact it is only after Adam disobeyed that God said, ""Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

 

[Alive]

We have no idea what Adam was like before sin. God has not told us. We know a few things about what he was doing, but even that stuff is occluded.
I suspect we neither have any idea the depth, breadth and severity that sin did to damage Adam…from God’s POV.
A very simple and limited analogy might be two apples side by side.
1. Freshly plucked beautiful healthy fruit just as designed
2. A fully rotten and molding apple

 

[JIM]

We have no idea what Adam was like before sin. God has not told us. We know a few things about what he was doing, but even that stuff is occluded.
I suspect we neither have any idea the depth, breadth and severity that sin did to damage Adam…from God’s POV.
A very simple and limited analogy might be two apples side by side.
1. Freshly plucked beautiful healthy fruit just as designed
2. A fully rotten and molding apple

Why, if that is the case, would God say in Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image"?

That doesn't sound to me like God's POV is that man is a "fully rotten and molding apple". I think that is your POV, not God's. Even after His seeing the wickedness of man and bringing the flood, God saw in man something of value in the likes of Noah, even to the point of declaring that Noah was a righteous man.

 

[Alive]

Why, if that is the case, would God say in Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image"?

That doesn't sound to me like God's POV is that man is a "fully rotten and molding apple". I think that is your POV, not God's. Even after His seeing the wickedness of man and bringing the flood, God saw in man something of value in the likes of Noah, even to the point of declaring that Noah was a righteous man.

Throughout scripture, rightness with God is a relative thing.

 

[JIM]

Throughout scripture, rightness with God is a relative thing.

Yes, of course. And that speaks volumes against the very notion of Total Depravity.

 

[Mr GLee]

The image of God in which Adam was created was in his spirit, not in his flesh. The image of Adam in which his son was born was in his flesh, not in his spirit.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The spirit of man is not a product of procreation. The spirit of man is a product of God, Himself. Traducianism is absolute heresy.

It would seem to be the goal of Satan King of lying sign to wonder after The king of identity theft in order to deceive all the nations of the world that God is Jewish man, as dying mankind .

God is not a man as us in any way shape or form.

Those that do make eternal Spirit into dying mankind. They invite the wrath of Christ (Roman 1) Worshiping the dying things seen created .And not "Let there be" the unseen eternal ONE. . the Faithful Creator

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Hebrews 11:27 By faith (the power of Christ )he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible

 

[Alive]

Yes, of course. And that speaks volumes against the very notion of Total Depravity.

I suspect you have been around long enough to have heard what is meant by TD in the context of Tulip.

 

[JIM]

I suspect you have been around long enough to have heard what is meant by TD in the context of Tulip.

Yes, it deprives man of any rational thinking in matters of God of the Bible.

 

[Alive]

Yes, it deprives man of any rational thinking in matters of God of the Bible.

No. It speaks to fallen man’s inability for any righteousness Godward. In his fallen state he has no capability in him to reach God.
He remains ‘rational’, just very limited.
He needs Grace.