Total Depravity

[DialecticSkeptic]

No doubt that is what they mean. But that is not the way those who reject total depravity see it. Therefore it needs/needed clarifying. I would go so far as to say that many against Calvinism never bother to look and see what is meant by it, but just stick with their gut reaction and denounce Calvinism as being unbiblical on those grounds.

I fully understand that, believe me. But I'm also convinced that it's possible (and necessary) to expose how superficial and frivolous that rejection is. I don't mean that doing so will necessarily convince them of anything, but simply exposing how superficial and frivolous their arguments are can have an effect. I certainly don't want to enable their disingenuous charade by pretending it has merit.

The teaching of total depravity is saying that no amount of moral living and doing will save a single soul ...

I don't mean to nit-pick, but total depravity says that there is zero moral living and doing. "There is no one who does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). In other words, utterly everything about the unregenerate sinner's life condemns him. There is no moral living he can point to. All that wool he pulls over his own eyes will not help him before the judgment seat of God.

I am convinced that this free will view comes from not believing/understanding what the imputed sin of Adam means. Though there are some who claim to agree with total depravity, but then say that the grace given by God unto salvation is very limited and weak. Not God-like at all. Only enough is given to each person so that they CAN choose Christ. And THEN, after they have made that choice, God grants them the new birth.

I agree. But I would also add that it comes from not believing/understanding the holiness of God—with which you would agree, I think, given what you said next:

But a choice made before the new birth of regeneration comes from an unregenerate sinner. One still in Adam. It is akin to believing that God, to put it into OT terms of worship (approaching the holy, holy, holy God) can be approached with strange fire, or that a sinful man can touch the holy things. They could not even touch the ark of the covenant, but had to carry it on poles.
​

I know. I am preaching to the choir, but I myself see things more deeply as I struggle to find the words I need.

As a writer, and someone who processes things through writing, I know that struggle.

 

[atpollard]

Arminius' Disputation 11 unequivocally proves Arminius viewed TD as correct (see Article VII).

While true, didn't Arminius advocate for a synergistic solution (not Prevenient Grace - that was Wesley - but something comparable in effect if not application)?

 

[Arial]

I fully understand that, believe me. But I'm also convinced that it's possible (and necessary) to expose how superficial and frivolous that rejection is. I don't mean that doing so will necessarily convince them of anything, but simply exposing how superficial and frivolous their arguments are can have an effect. I certainly don't want to enable their disingenuous charade by pretending it has merit.

I agree. I do the best I can with what I have when it comes up so badly misstated. So far it simply gets misstated again back at me. It is not only no recognition of the holiness of God, therefore no clue as to what holiness means, (as you mention) but also no recognition of the distance of separation between God and mankind. IOW no recognition of man's position before God as a creature (created being) and the One who created us.

In a sense they start with mankind and then define God accordingly. Always looking at God through our eyes instead of looking at us through His. Even though He tells us who He is and who we are. Always maintaining their own "goodness" and the ability to be good and do good.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but total depravity says that there is zero moral living and doing. "There is no one who does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). In other words, utterly everything about the unregenerate sinner's life condemns him. There is no moral living he can point to. All that wool he pulls over his own eyes will not help him before the judgment seat of God.

I don't consider it nit-picking and I completely agree that the reality of the situation is that there is no moral living and doing because of the separation from God by the fact that due to the fall the human race in its entirety is at enmity with God until/unless a person is reconciled to God through the work of Christ and union with Him through faith. Nevertheless all are required to do morally good things and live uprightly. And some do. All do things that are in and of themselves "good" sometimes. It is morally good to feed the poor, to care for your children etc. That does not mean that in God's sight they provide forgiveness of sin. The person has still not been reconciled to God. There is one who is good, and that is God. So it is not that we cannot do things that are morally good in and of themselves, it is that it will not reconcile us to God. Until that happens by being placed in Christ (which we cannot do because if we did, that too would be a good and moral act that we were able to perform that saved us and there is no such thing) anything we do even if it is inherently a good thing, will count for nothing towards our salvation.

 

[atpollard]

Any Christian who rejects the T of the acrostic TULIP because he believes that unregenerate sinners can do morally good things needs to confront the same challenge I posed to you. He would have to explain how acts performed for godless reasons are not a sin. As I understand it, "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). In other words, he will not be able to point to a single good thing that unregenerate sinners do—and that should be a wake-up call for him.

While completely TRUE, it misses the point that "TULIP" only addresses sotieriology and not all human activity ... so it is a rejection of a false definition of "Total Depravity" (even if that false definition is also a true statement about people). YES, we can do no "good" apart from God (for only God is good), but that is not what the T in TULIP is discussing ... TULIP is only addressing SALVATION.

TOTAL = our mind/thoughts/reason, our feelings/emotion, our physical body/flesh.
DEPRAVITY/INABILITY = bent, sinful, miss the mark.

• Our Mind/thoughts/reason do not think like God thinks or like a regenerate man thinks or like we would need to think to accept the truth and believe it. God's truth is illogical nonsense to the natural mind. Our thoughts lead us AWAY from God rather that TOWARDS God. Our Thoughts are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of guiding us to SALVATION.
• Our feelings/emotions do not react like God thinks or like a regenerate man. We should feel shame at our sin, but we feel pride. We should feel joy to approach our creator to be healed, but we feel fear and condemnation. Our emotions lead us AWAY from God rather that TOWARDS God. Our Emotions are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of guiding us to SALVATION.
• Our physical body/flesh does not react like God originally made it or like a regenerate man. Our flesh should delight in labor to praise God with our service - doing that which we were created for, instead our flesh craves sin - our eyes lust after things, our hands form fists to commit violence, our ears itch to hear gossip, and our tongues ... well, we will not even discuss our tongues. Our bodies lead us AWAY from God rather that TOWARDS God. Our Bodies are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of guiding us to SALVATION.

That is what "Total Depravity" is talking about. When Adam sinned, his thoughts, emotions and flesh (all created VERY GOOD) should have led him to run towards God in the Garden and beg for help ... instead, they all betrayed Adam by leading him to run away, hide from God, seek to cover his own shame and to blame God and Eve. The "apple didn't fall far from the tree" ... we are JUST LIKE ADAM!

 

[Arial]

The doctrine of "Total Depravity" TTD) is very specific and very limited. It's soteriologically relevant concept, not one applicable to anything outside the one specific domain of salvation. TD does not mean humans cannot do any moral good, or that they are wholly depraved to that point of incapability of any and all moral good. What TD does mean is that when it comes to the single, sole, solitary matter of being able to effect one's salvation by sinful human effort we lack that capacity. We can do nothing in our own might to effect our salvation.

More specifically, TD is about the nature of sin, not the nature of humanity. When it comes to human salvific effort sin has had a totally depraving effect. Only that one condition of salvation. Not all conduct in all places at all times, and not all of humanity outside the matter of salvation.

The effect of sin is totally depraving solely on the ability to come to God for salvation in one's own might.

I do know this and realize (now that it has been pointed out by you and @atpollard ) that I left out clarity on it in the OP. I do allude to it in the exchanges that follow the OP. As I have in discussions on free will which is closely tied to a rejection of the doctrine of total depravity, in which those arguments from the free will side appeal to their position as though the election side were saying that the fall took all will away from mankind and all ability to freely make choices. When really it only applies to our condition since the fall affecting our will to choose Christ, to come to God. If we are at enmity with God by the nature of our fallen state, we can't choose Him because that would be violating our own will. We can't because we don't want to much more than we do want to. We are alienated from Him. In this we are totally depraved.

The effect of sin is wholly effective in preventing sinful humanity from coming to God for the purpose of salvation. To borrow from Jonathon Edwards: the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved. We can do nothing else. This is not an exclusively Calvinist position. Augustine held to it, and so too did Arminius subscribe to what we now call "total depravity." Arminius was a one-pointer . This is important because a lot of synergists of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian persuasion incorrectly think of themselves and incorrectly argue Arminianism as if TD does not apply to Arminian soteriology. Arminius' Disputation 11 unequivocally proves Arminius viewed TD as correct (see Article VII).

I know Arminius subscribed to total depravity and that some Arminists do. It is grace they have messed up.

 

[Eleanor]

I just want to interrupt your conversation here to highlight an alternative perspective. You and others are free to take it or leave it. My intent is only to provide it for contemplation.

I think the guilt of this one act of trespass is imputed not through natural birth but rather covenant union,

The covenant makes us guilty of Adam's sin?
This does not correspond with NT teaching.
All mankind, not just those in covenant union, are imputed with Adam's sin (Ro 5:12-14).

just as the righteousness of Christ is not imputed through natural birth. [This view maintains the covenant symmetry of the first and second Adam, a symmetry that is broken by the view you described above. Adam's guilt is imputed to those in him, while Christ's righteousness is imputed to those in him. Those terms, "in Adam" and "in Christ," indicate covenant union. As the apostle Paul described it, "For if by the transgression of the one man, [Adam,] death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:17-18). Those who are in Adam (by default) belong to the natural, earthly, old creation that experiences condemnation and death, while those in Christ (by grace) belong to the spiritual, heavenly, new creation that experiences salvation and life. In every respect, it is by covenant union.

Our fallen nature, like fallen Adam, is characterized as death. The day he fell, he died. And, as fallen in Adam, we are dead—and sin reigns in death. (And this is all in contrast to life in Christ, who makes us alive—and righteousness reigns in life.) These are not biological realities conferred through natural generation, but rather theological realities conferred through covenant union.

Our inherited sinful nature of Adam has spiritual effects--separation from God.
Our imputed forensic righteousness has spiritual effects--reconciliation with God.

We are born separated from God and harboring enmity toward him because our federal head broke the terms of that covenant relationship. Our original communion with God was established in the context of a covenant relationship. When our federal head broke that covenant, our communion with God was severed and we were spiritually cut off from God and the power by which we were enabled to live righteous lives. (And those in Christ are regarded as covenant-keepers, having been reconciled to God and once again enjoy communion with him and the power by which we are enabled to live righteous lives.)

Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenant union, not biological union. As Derek Kidner explained in his commentary on Genesis,

​

Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind "in Adam" and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent ... Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ's death "one died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam "the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:14).​

​

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 30.

 

[Arial]

Any Christian who rejects the T of the acrostic TULIP because he believes that unregenerate sinners can do morally good things needs to confront the same challenge I posed to you. He would have to explain how acts performed for godless reasons are not a sin. As I understand it, "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). In other words, he will not be able to point to a single good thing that unregenerate sinners do—and that should be a wake-up call for him.

I agree that an unregenerate sinner is always doing things, even what would be seen as good, for a godless reason is sin. For his own good not the glory of God. And even the regenerated person cannot do any good thing that merits his salvation, but the good he does becomes the fruit of his regeneration, of being in Christ.

And if we look carefully within ourselves when we pray or when we do good things, we will find that seed of the old man lurking as we silently applaud ourselves, much to our chagrin. The difference is, it can't condemn us for we wear the robes of Christ's righteousness. We are no longer in Adam, though we still live in the flesh of Adam, and still have the fallen nature of Adam, but we are in Christ. It is good to recognize that lest we ever forget that we are still poor and needy and depend on His grace and His mercy.

It is as Calvin said in the Institutes, and I paraphrase, this interceding for us according to the will of the Father in prayer by the Holy Spirit, and Christ's interceding for us as mediator, all the lurking "old man" in us that enterjects itself into our thoughts in the midst of our obedience, is cleaned up, washed away, in this intercession.

 

[atpollard]

The covenant makes us guilty of Adam's sin?
This does not correspond with NT teaching.
All mankind, not just those in covenant union, are imputed with Adam's sin (Ro 5:12-14).

All decedents of Israel are bound by God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... either the blessing for obedience or the curse for disobedience. That is just a fact of the OT Covenant and the Nation of Israel.

@DialecticSkeptic is positing that God made a covenant with Adam and all decendents of Adam are bound by the covenant that God made with Adam ... the blessing for obedience or the curse for disobedience. Since Adam sinned, the "NATION" of Adam (all mankind) was dragged off into slavery to "sin" as a punishment.

If he is correct, then like being born in Egypt or Babylon as a child of Israel, anyone born a decedent of Adam is born into the punishment of the "nation of Adam" (the human race). If you are not "human", then Adam's curse does not fall on you. So "Neanderthals" may be off the hook.

 

[Eleanor]

All decedents of Israel are bound by God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... either the blessing for obedience or the curse for disobedience. That is just a fact of the OT Covenant and the Nation of Israel.

@DialecticSkeptic is positing that God made a covenant with Adam and all decendents of Adam are bound by the covenant that God made with Adam ... the blessing for obedience or the curse for disobedience. Since Adam sinned, the "NATION" of Adam (all mankind) was dragged off into slavery to "sin" as a punishment.

If he is correct, then like being born in Egypt or Babylon as a child of Israel, anyone born a decedent of Adam is born into the punishment of the "nation of Adam" (the human race). If you are not "human", then Adam's curse does not fall on you. So "Neanderthals" may be off the hook.

Thanks.

I don't find a covenant with Adam in Scripture.

I prefer to stick with the Biblical text.

 

[Arial]

Except that when Adam WASN'T a "Sinner" (before the "fall"), he responded to "TEMPTATION" (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do, and there was "Enticement" from satan, just like we all face. So, other than immediately dying spiritually, NOTHING CHANGED in Adam. His Nature didn't change, nor did his reponse to his own personal desires. We inherited NOTHING (such as "imputed SIN") from Adam, except his HUMAN NATURE, which was the SAME before the "Fall" as it was afterwards.

A great deal changed. Everything in fact. Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, away from the intimate covenant relationship they had with God. The entire human race became alienated from God. And it is not inherited through DNA. It is what mankind through Adam and as creatures, have become. They type of creature we are is a creature who sins against God. The Bible clearly shows and tells us that this is the condition of all men. That is imputed. The imputed sin of Adam who is the federal head of all men according to God's decree. Death came to all men because of the one man. God does not condemn us on an individual basis starting with our first sin. That would be chaos and there is no chaos in God. It would also make it impossible for Jesus to provide atonement. He had to come to us as the second Adam without sin.

And indeed we are also personally guilty of sinning against God. But as a part of the human race---a creature alienated from God---we are sinners by who we are in Adam.

Not so - Our HUMAN NATURE is the same as Adam's BEFORE the fall, so what changed - OTHER THAN Adam's environment??

See above. The change of environment was because Adam broke the covenant. He alienated Himself from God. A sinner cannot be allowed to live forever and certainly cannot be allowed in fellowship with a holy God. Learn what holy is and you will see God more clearly. (Sproul has some excellent books and videos on the holiness of God. To dismiss even looking at them on the grounds that you discount Reformed theology would indicate a satisfaction with what one believes and a need to go no farther in one's pursuit of the knowledge of God. Those teachings on the holiness of God are true no matter what theological view one has.)

Specifically, It's the infilling of the Holy Spirit in us, which changes us progressively into the image of Christ (Rom 8:28,29).

The rebirth by the Holy Spirit and the infilling of the Holy Spirit occur together but they are distinct.

 

[Josheb]

Except that when Adam WASN'T a "Sinner" (before the "fall"), he responded to "TEMPTATION" (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do...

Please prove that premise.

Do not assume it as a given. Prove it.

....and there was "Enticement" from satan, just like we all face.

That contradicts the premise, "in exactly the same way we all do."

James says "we," the Christian living in a post-disobedient world who was once dead in sin but is now dead to sin, dead in Christ, and alive in Christ, are tempted by our own desires that drag us away and entice us. James does NOT say the deveil tempts us. In fact, James plainly states the devil flees when resisted and throughout his entire epistle he places the onus, responsibility, culpability, and accountability solely on the human - never satan.

When Adam was not a sinner, he did not have any evil desires that might drag him away and entice him.

So please prove Adam was tempted in the exact same way as us and correct the contradiction between saying Adam was tempted as James described (from within) and then also saying it was enticement from satan (from the outside).

 

[Josheb]

Thanks.

I don't find a covenant with Adam in Scripture.

I prefer to stick with the Biblical text.

It's not stated but most infer it because Adam (and Eve) were selected, called, chosen, promised, and commanded in manners consistent with the other covenant(s) that later ensured. Furthermore, while it is not specifically stated "I covenant with Adam," God does state He has a covenant with elements of creation such as the day and night.

Jeremiah 33:19-21 ESV
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Thus says the LORD: If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also My covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and My covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.

That covenant would go back to Genesis 1. Notice that the term "covenant" is almost always used in the singular, rarely the plural. The ovenant with Moses and David is singular and tied by God to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the patriarchs. It is a single covenant, not multiple, completely different covenants. Thre are only four plural mentions of "covenants" in the entire Bible and only one of them occurs in the OT, and one of the other three is not covenants made by God. One of the two remaining plural uses ties the plural together under the category of "covenants of promise."

So taken as a whole, there is only one covenant from beginning to end, even though a variety of people are included in the covenant at different punctuations in history, and scripture speaks of "old" and "new" covenant. They are all aspects of the covenant found in Christ.

 

[Josheb]

While true, didn't Arminius advocate for a synergistic solution (not Prevenient Grace - that was Wesley - but something comparable in effect if not application)?

Arminius was synergistic, and Wesley more so. Just as many Pelagian-influenced believers incorrectly think they are Arminian, so too do many Wesleyans.

In Reformed Arminianism prevenient grace is both a pre-regeneration condition of grace pervading creation and also a specific moment in the process of conversion. Arminius hypothesized a moment in between total depravity and regeneration where God momentarily freed the person from his/her blindness, deafness, inability to hear and understand and in that moment freely choose God. If the person in the prevenient moment believed, then God regenerated and saved the person. If the person in that prevenient moment did not choose God, then s/he returned to the enslaved and dead state and remained that way. Arminius used different words, but that is the essence of his soteriology. In essence, God acted but let His work become dependent upon the sinfully sinful sinner (redundant hyperbole intended) and on every single occasion where that preveniently blessed sinner walked away God was fruitless; He did not accomplish His objective. Keep in mind these are the same people who emphasize God desiring all be saved. He desires all be saved and then acts in a specific individual episode with the specific purpose of converting the person from life to death but surrenders the goal and all His work to the sinful flesh of the enslaved corpse!

Synergists often claim monergism creates and intermediate state but that is not true; it is the Arminian that does that. The person who was previously dead in sin and apart from Christ can do NOTHING (Arminius' words) is suddenly able to choose because he's enabled to do so no longer apart from Christ..... but then returns to the "apart from Christ" state if he rejects God.

Where, then, are these people who know God but don't know God? Where does scripture report this group of people who have come to the knowledge AND understanding of God and walked away still possessing THAT knowledge? There could be hundreds of thousands if not millions of these people in every generation, so we'd see them every day in ordinary life, even today. Where are they in scripture? Where are they in everyday life?

 

[Josheb]

I do know this and realize (now that it has been pointed out by you and @atpollard ) that I left out clarity on it in the OP. I do allude to it in the exchanges that follow the OP. As I have in discussions on free will which is closely tied to a rejection of the doctrine of total depravity, in which those arguments from the free will side appeal to their position as though the election side were saying that the fall took all will away from mankind and all ability to freely make choices. When really it only applies to our condition since the fall affecting our will to choose Christ, to come to God....

Yep. I emphasized the limits because, as you and I both know, in debates about soteriology and especially criticisms of Calvinism we monergists often find ourselves facing straw men. Every single one of the five points has a variety of straw men argued in pace of what each asserts. The "T" is no different. We want the naysayer to understand these points are very specific and very limited solely to some aspect of salvation and not applicable outside of salvation. Another concern to which I was trying to speak is the misguided notion only Cals hold to the T. That is incorrect.

If we are at enmity with God by the nature of our fallen state, we can't choose Him because that would be violating our own will.

That is true, but that is not specifically what TD asserts. As I said previously, TD is more about the nature of sin than the nature of the sinner. Sin has had a totally depraving effect on soteriological agency, not the sinner being totally depraved and incapable of any and all moral good. I like Schaeffer and Sproul say on this, so I'll post or link to their commentary when I have time to track it down.

We can't because we don't want to much more than we do want to.

Again I agree, sorta. I think the issue of "want" misguided because the sinner does not know what he wants. What he thinks he wants is like the the man who has never had a steak thinking he likes rice and delighted when he has all the rice he "wants." I would even go so far as to appeal to "the dead know nothing."

An analogy I often use is the drowning victim washed up on the beach who is still conscious but at death's door, unresponsive, and will inevitably die if no one intervenes. I can shake that person and ask them if they want me to revive them all I like but they CANNOT respond to me efforts. It's not a question of coercion because their will is not operational; they are unconscious and unable to respond.

As Arminius put it, apart from Christ nothing can be done.

We are alienated from Him. In this we are totally depraved.

Yes, but that muddies the water because being alienated is not identical to sin's totally depraving effect.

I know Arminius subscribed to total depravity and that some Arminians do. It is grace they have messed up.

Yep. This is observable in their "exegesis." Context and audience affiliation are often ignored, and inferences not supported by the text itself are read into the text. Words written to the regenerate converted believer about the regenerated converted believer do not apply to the unregenerated never-converted non-believer. The differences are ontological. Simply put....


Non-believers are not believers.

Once the ontology of those two types of creatures is grasped the veracity of TD becomes more apparent.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Please prove that premise.

No problem - just read the Biblical account. Why were Adam, Eve, and the serpent all together AT THE ONE TREE IN THE GARDEN tha God had told them not to have anything to do with. Eve's reactions are recorded - i.e. they "lusted after THAT FRUIT", and satan came along with his enticement (God's LYING TO YOU - YOU WON'T DIE, WHY, You'll become like HIM!!!). And Eve "bought it" first, and Adam did afterward.

James plainly states the devil flees when resisted

But stays when he sees that he's gaining ground.

When Adam was not a sinner, he did not have any evil desires that might drag him away and entice him.

Then why were he, and his wife there at the very tree that he wasn't supposed to have anything to do with. Get REAL.

Nobody EVER "Proves" anything here, as you well know.

BUT HEY!! James teaches that a person is drawn away by HIS OWN PERSONAL DESIRES (lust) and "Enticed". Who do you suppose provides the "Enticement"??? DO the math. no difference between Adam, and you/me. the process is the same.

 

[Eleanor]

It's not stated but most infer it because Adam (and Eve) were selected, called, chosen, promised, and commanded in manners consistent with the other covenant(s) that later ensured. Furthermore, while it is not specifically stated "I covenant with Adam," God does state He has a covenant with elements of creation such as the day and night.

I don't see any "commanded" in the covenant of Ge 15:9-21 which ensured almost 600 years later.

Jeremiah 33:19-21 ESV
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Thus says the LORD: If you can break My covenant with theg day and My covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also My covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and My covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.
That covenant would go back to Genesis 1. Notice that the term "covenant" is almost always used in the singular, rarely the plural. The ovenant with Moses and David is singular and tied by God to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the patriarchs. It is a single covenant, not multiple, completely different covenants. Thre are only four plural mentions of "covenants" in the entire Bible and only one of them occurs in the OT, and one of the other three is not covenants made by God. One of the two remaining plural uses ties the plural together under the category of "covenants of promise."

A covenant, most of the time being an obligation undertaken by a single person, as we see it used in God's covenant with the day and night, with David and with the Levites, basically equates to God's decrees in these matters, to which could also be added the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant of Ge 15:9-21, the Phinehas covenant and the New Covenant of peace (Jer 31:31-34).

So taken as a whole, there is only one covenant from beginning to end, even though a variety of people are included in the covenant at different punctuations in history, and scripture speaks of "old" and "new" covenant. They are all aspects of the covenant found in Christ.

That is not in agreement with the Biblical record.
The covenant with day and night is not related to the covenant of the everlasting possession with Abraham in Ge 15:9:21.

 

[Arial]

We are alienated from Him. In this we are totally depraved.

Yes, but that muddies the water because being alienated is not identical to sin's totally depraving effect.

I am just pulling this one section out of your post to address. The rest I agree with and it clarifies other aspects of TD that I was not specifically addressing, but are good to have clarified. And put another angle of it.

I agree that my statement may have muddied the waters a bit as it was not clear. Sometimes I rush ahead of my thoughts and end up leaving things out. I was merely trying to stress the complete alienation of mankind as a species, from God. Not just because we sin but because we are an alien race. It is often looked at as God only being concerned with the personal sins of each person when it comes to the atonement. But that is not the whole story. It goes back to what we became by virtue of being in our federal head, Adam. And indeed I did make that statement as though being totally depraved was the same thing as being alienated. And I do not think that it is.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... Nevertheless, all are required to do morally good things and live uprightly. And some do. All do things [sometimes that are good in and of themselves]. It is morally good to feed the poor, to care for your children, etc. ... So, it is not that we cannot do things that are morally good in and of themselves, it is that it will not reconcile us to God.

All must do good and live uprightly. And some do. This statement of yours seems to contradict so many scriptures and the doctrine of total depravity. For example, Jesus said that a bad tree is not able to bear good fruit. But your statement here says that at least some bad trees can bear good fruit. And the apostle Paul said there is no one who does good, not even one. But your statement here says there are some who do good. Can you reconcile these for me, please? Also, those good things that some unregenerate sinners can do, are those things pleasing to God? If not, why not? And in what sense are they good, then?

Some things are good in and of themselves. This statement leaves me curious about how you would defend it. On my view, such as it is, nothing is good in and of itself. Moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Put another way, moral truth is determined by the will of God which proceeds from his immutable nature. That means nothing is good in and of itself, but rather in relation to the nature and will of God who alone is good. It also means he never commands something for its own sake, but rather for the sake of his own glory. And we're even supposed to do everything for the glory of God.

On your view, as expressed here, the moral value of at least some things is determined without reference to God, which means at least some moral order is autonomous, grounded in something other than God—which opens a fascinating can of worms and creates a host of thorny dilemmas, especially theological. (For example, just imagine the impact of this on the doctrine of divine sovereignty.)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The covenant makes us guilty of Adam's sin?

How is the guilt of Adam's trespass imputed to all mankind? Through covenant union, insofar as he is the federal head of fallen humanity—just as Christ is the head of redeemed humanity, and his righteousness is imputed to them. We are counted as guilty by virtue of the disobedience of the first Adam, and we are counted as righteous by virtue of the obedience of the last Adam.

 

[Agra Man]

It has been said that some Reformed or Calvinist teach that people can't do anything good. I am not going to rule out that there are some who are not well versed in the doctrines that they believe have said such a thing and meant it literally. More likely though it is a misinterpretation on the part of the hearer/reader as to what is being said, or a failure on the part of the author/speaker to elaborate.

The theology of total depravity or radical depravity is based in large part on Romans 3: 9-18 which is quoting various parts of the OT. It is based also on the imputed sin of Adam to all his progeny. So the premise of the doctrine is that all mankind through Adam became sinners by nature. That is, we sin because sinners is what we are. Therefore as a creation, a species, our nature is sinful as a result of the fall.

And this explains the passages given and Is 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

So the doctrine of total depravity is not teaching that humans never do or cannot do good things. It means that even their good deeds and thoughts are tainted by our fallen nature, and therefore they contain elements in our hearts that bear on our intentions. They are not truly and completely a submitting to God.They aren't in honor and worship of God but are centered on ourselves. And they can never make us perfectly righteous which is the righteousness that our Creator demands as having made us in His image and likeness.

Truly and completely submitting to God is only achievable through being united with Christ through faith. The rebirth is a rebirth into Christ. Our natural birth is "born in Adam." And of course, that is not to say, that we always submit to God perfectly. For we still do live with that nature of a sinner while we are in this world. What it means is that in Christ through faith, His perfect righteousness is counted as ours, removing sins power to condemn us. That is what He defeated on the cross when He defeated the power of both the imputed sin of Adam and provided forgiveness for our personal sins.

No this doesn't matter, the mistake of human understanding the mistake of what we consider to be truth is not any kind of purpose or truth.

his way are not our ways for a reason discard all understanding all your theology all your perception your asking the wrong questions your relying on the mindset of theology of doctrine of what man calls truth he is not like us you will never see or obtain the truth of all truths if you keep going like this your not going to get the answers you seek

This is all far more than you realize the wonders and mysteries of God will not be given for the average believer stop looking for the simple things give up your doctrine your denomiation you understanding

are you dead serious about this or not? are you ok with being the average believer? the real thing the actual proof of it all the mere presence of God being so thick so rich so sureal that you would purposely refuse to go to an eye doctor appointment that is vital for your health because you are home you are so deeply intertwined with him you know this is what it is all about this is what it is to to be with him. I live with him I don't have to seek him anymore I can tell you all you need to know about him because I was not ok with this so called truth that pnly causes division all the scripture we claim to believe all the confusion that is clearly the fruits of the enemy


He isn't looking for more scholars he is looking for the willing those who would prove his word not just study it or teach it look at this world do you see this so called faith and love? do you see the impossible? it isn't his fault he is willing but if this is just a hobby to us if if is about doctrine or theology you will never reach that that point with him

either you are all in or not your confusion your wondering is because you are not in this for the real thing decide for yourself where you stand do you want to know who and what he really is or not? if you cannot discern the tactics and warefare that enemy has clearly shown then do you really call yourself a a believer?

the denomiantions the difference in understanding of scripture the so called theology see what it has done see how powerless we really are we who claim to have the truth go ahead prove it take your understanding take you resolve and see if it stacks up to what his word says

He said plain and simple it only takes the faith of mustard seed was that just words to you if you cannot even take that and prove it then why is that? why do you call yourself a Christian? why were you in this to begin with?

Stop asking seek it stop playing being a Christian stop speaking of his word prove it be the real deal