Total Depravity Explained Without Reference to the Human Will

[Arial]

Borrowing this answer to Soldier of Christ I do have one question concerning the content of the OP.

Why is it to be assumed that the will or free will is non existent in total depravity?

If it were to be considered, what damage would it do to the explanation?

Thanks

The doctrine of Total Depravity is not about man's will, but about his condition. It is the beginning of establishing the necessity of a monergistic redemption.

The idea of "free" will is bound to come up in discussing the other doctrines of grace, but imo that is because of man's probing or questioning or resisting, or not understanding the full totality of man's transgression and what it did. The question naturally comes up iow. And because the idea of man making choices is the same thing as free will, and that being inserted into the Doctrine of Total Depravity. The very fallen nature of man at work is how I see it, even the "old man" asserting itself in the true believer,but of course, not everyone has to see it that way.

 

[JIM]

It does not dispute the doctrine of Total Depravity. Here is why.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity is not dealing with whatever desires man may have. It is not dealing with whether or not humans can sometimes do good or desire good or hate their sins. It is dealing with who God is and man's relationship to and condition before God. It establishes that the problem of sin, and man's very nature to sin, can only be changed by God Himself. And it requires His grace. The following doctrines of that grace, show the operation of grace from the perspective of God, towards those He reconciles to Himself.

 

[Arial]

@JIM

Post 22 only quotes me and has no comment from you. Is this intentional or and oversight?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Fair enough. I am just stating how I have come to feel about it. But then, I have it fairly well worked out in my mind over the accumulation of years, and those purporting free will in choosing Christ, either without grace altogether, or with grace given to all as a means of choosing rightly or rejecting altogether, have not.

And the arguments put forth by Geisler in "Chosen But Free" and the Open Theists, in particular are very persuasive. Not to mention it has been taught to almost the exclusion of all else in the post modern church. And without a spec of the Reformed view even being mentioned or examined.

I 100% agree with this assessment. Though I disagree that Geisler arguments in Chosen but free are very persuasive. Here's why, they never can answer with total satisfaction on Biblical grounds of how a sinner is saved before a Holy God. They can dance around it, avoid it, or blatantly misrepresent the truth for lies. Grace as you correctly stated is the remedy for sinners, and without it nobody will ever be saved, no matter how they try to twist and distort scripture. But to understand Grace one must understand why they need it, right? Our fallen wills in Adam is now in enslave to sin; willingly; by free choice; is a Mt. Everest they can't climb.

And those who read his book Chosen But Free, as you also have stated correctly need to hear the Reformed View on the matter. But if we avoid the elephant in the room as they do, how does that help us? Sharing the Biblical truths is what we must do, which includes our wills, choices, masters we serve.
​

Slaves to Righteousness​

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Believers have been regenerated made anew now having the ability to trust and believe in God. We also now have the ability to perform good works of righteousness because we have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God. God doesn't believe for us but he has opened our eyes, ears, hearts and minds to trust in him and follow and obey him. Because now we are new creations in the Spirit.​

Oh, I agree there should be a discussion about it in that case. But they seldom ask, they just tell. And pay no mind to anything that is said on our part about it. Nevertheless, we speak, plant the seed, God does the growing. It may be that those who bullheadedly stick to their guns in a debate are not the ones God sends to hear.

 

[Arial]

Though I disagree that Geisler arguments in Chosen but free are very persuasive.

I should have qualified that statement. They are persuasive to those not well grounded in the word and who dislike Calvinism before they ever begin. It is very deceptive that he calls himself a four point Calvinist---calls five point Extreme Calvinism---the proceeds to dismantle every doctrine in the TULIP. That book was given me to read within days of my looking into Calvinism. I started reading it, could see the errors, and never finished. I said to the one who gave it to me that Geisler was just muddying the waters on purpose. And I was too new to let that happen. Later I read White's book that refuted it point by point " The Potter's Freedom."

But to understand Grace one must understand why they need it, right? Our fallen wills in Adam that is now in enslave to sin; willingly; by free choice; is a Mt. Everest they can't climb

Yes, exactly. That is why the doctrines of grace begin with total depravity. Regardless of the fact that that is what it is called only for the sake of the acronym. What is in it is what shines a spotlight on the absolute need of grace, and not just a grace that is available for the taking and can also be rejected, but a grace that accomplishes God's purpose without fail. (Just like everything else He does and purposes.)

And those who read his book Chosen But Free, as you also have stated correctly need to hear the Reformed View on the matter. But if we avoid the elephant in the room as they do, how does that help us? Sharing the Biblical truths is what we must do, which includes our wills, choices, masters we serve.

I agree.

 

[Alive]

Yup…as I have offered before. Without T the whole thing collapses.
T points us to Grace…to Christ.

 

[JIM]

@JIM

Post 22 only quotes me and has no comment from you. Is this intentional or and oversight?

Yes, I started to comment but had to leave, and I need more time than I have right now. I will come back later and comment.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I should have qualified that statement. They are persuasive to those not well grounded in the word and who dislike Calvinism before they ever begin. It is very deceptive that he calls himself a four point Calvinist---calls five point Extreme Calvinism---the proceeds to dismantle every doctrine in the TULIP. That book was given me to read within days of my looking into Calvinism. I started reading it, could see the errors, and never finished. I said to the one who gave it to me that Geisler was just muddying the waters on purpose. And I was too new to let that happen. Later I read White's book that refuted it point by point " The Potter's Freedom."

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, also agree with that assessment as well. I find it ironic that they have problems with John Calvin (Calvinism); which BTW he hated that nickname, he preferred the Doctrines of Grace. But they have no problem with Geisler, why? Because he tickles their ears on what they want to hear. They don't want to hear how far we have fallen from God. They dislike to discuss sin and our sinful condition, our helpless state that relies solely on God's Mercy & Grace. As if they refuse to beg and grovel for Mercy. It's beneath them to do so. They rather be like the Pharisees who think they are godly men practicing godly acts and boast about them, and judge others as they look down with disgust; ewww, look at these filthy sinners. Thank God, I am not like them.​

Yes, exactly. That is why the doctrines of grace begin with total depravity. Regardless of the fact that that is what it is called only for the sake of the acronym. What is in it is what shines a spotlight on the absolute need of grace, and not just a grace that is available for the taking and can also be rejected, but a grace that accomplishes God's purpose without fail. (Just like everything else He does and purposes.)

I agree.

I concur.

 

[Arial]

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, also agree with that assessment as well. I find it ironic that they have problems with John Calvin (Calvinism); which BTW he hated that nickname, he preferred the Doctrines of Grace. But they have no problem with Geisler, why? Because he tickles their ears on what they want to hear. They don't want to hear how far we have fallen from God. They dislike to discuss sin and our sinful condition, our helpless state that relies solely on God's Mercy & Grace. As if they refuse to beg and grovel for Mercy. It's beneath them to do so. They rather be like the Pharisees who think they are godly men practicing godly acts and boast about them, and judge others as they look down with disgust; ewww, look at these filthy sinners. Thank God, I am not like them.

It is that old creature still alive in the flesh even of the true believer. A resistance towards the dominion of God. A desire for autonomy. The sad thing is, as long as that resistance is held on to and never acknowledged for what it is, there can be no sanctifying in that area. That old man won't die until they do. And he is a trouble maker to be sure.

 

[Arial]

Yes, I started to comment but had to leave, and I need more time than I have right now. I will come back later and comment.

FYI you can save those as a draft. Little square document looking thing at top right of the post. Click on it and "save draft". It will then sit there un posted until you can come back and finish.

 

[Ladodgers6]

It is that old creature still alive in the flesh even of the true believer. A resistance towards the dominion of God. A desire for autonomy. The sad thing is, as long as that resistance is held on to and never acknowledged for what it is, there can be no sanctifying in that area. That old man won't die until they do. And he is a trouble maker to be sure.

Exactly, as Luther once wrote, the old Adam refuses to die, he wants to float.

 

[JIM]

FYI you can save those as a draft. Little square document looking thing at top right of the post. Click on it and "save draft". It will then sit there un posted until you can come back and finish.

Thanks for that information. I had not noticed that before.

 

[JIM]

It does not dispute the doctrine of Total Depravity. Here is why.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity is not dealing with whatever desires man may have. It is not dealing with whether or not humans can sometimes do good or desire good or hate their sins. It is dealing with who God is and man's relationship to and condition before God. It establishes that the problem of sin, and man's very nature to sin, can only be changed by God Himself. And it requires His grace. The following doctrines of that grace, show the operation of grace from the perspective of God, towards those He reconciles to Himself.

I was going to comment further in regard to this, however, before doing so, I would like your thought on whether or not you think that Total Depravity precludes the ability for the "unelect" to hear or read the scriptures and comprehend the truth contained therein.

 

[Arial]

I was going to comment further in regard to this, however, before doing so, I would like your thought on whether or not you think that Total Depravity precludes the ability for the "unelect" to hear or read the scriptures and comprehend the truth contained therein.

They have the ability to hear it audibly but it does not penetrate the heart.
They have the ability read the scriptures, but they do not penetrate the heart.
They have the ability to comprehend the meaning of the word---they know what is being said---but they do not believe it.

Matt 13:15 For this people's heart has grown dull and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed. lest they should see with they eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.


John 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

1 Cor 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[JIM]

They have the ability to hear it audibly but it does not penetrate the heart.
They have the ability read the scriptures, but they do not penetrate the heart.
They have the ability to comprehend the meaning of the word---they know what is being said---but they do not believe it.

So then since they do not believe it and believing is integrally tied to the will, then Total Depravity is integrally tied to the will.

 

[Alive]

So then since they do not believe it and believing is integrally tied to the will, then Total Depravity is integrally tied to the will.

Yes…in the sense that the will of Adam is one of the things corrupted in his being.
He is ontologically incapable of being anything other than dead in sin.

 

[JIM]

Yes…in the sense that the will of Adam is one of the things corrupted in his being.
He is ontologically incapable of being anything other than dead in sin.

Yes Adam became dead in sin when he sinned, when he disobeyed God. We, just like Adam, became dead in sin when we sinned.

 

[Alive]

Yes Adam became dead in sin when he sinned, when he disobeyed God. We, just like Adam, became dead in sin when we sinned.

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

(1 Corinthians 15:22 NAS20)

I see the concept here is being ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ.

 

[JIM]

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

(1 Corinthians 15:22 NAS20)

I see the concept here is being ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ.

That is not speaking of regeneration, but rather the resurrection at the end of the age and everyone, lost and saved, will be made alive, that is resurrected to their final state.

 

[Alive]

That is not speaking of regeneration, but rather the resurrection at the end of the age and everyone, lost and saved, will be made alive, that is resurrected to their final state.

Where you are determines the outcome. It’s very simple.
I am now and forever alive in Christ where I once was dead.