Total Depravity

[jlay]

And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?

That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.

So you think its accurate to say that man goes to hell with his sins paid for?

I said thta very thing in a recent thread.

[narnia4]

And if God is the first mover then why does God's first movement seem to succeed in some and fail in others?

That is how you look at it, not me. God is completely successful in that sin and the devil are defeated. The fact that men run from the light and deny what God has done for them, does not make God a failure. If God in His sovereign will has decreed that atonement is universal and the Gospel to be proclaimed as such, and man is to respond volitionally whether in faith or unbelief, then I see no failure from God.

So you think its accurate to say that man goes to hell with his sins paid for?

I said thta very thing in a recent thread.

That's probably what brought it to mind.

Thanks again for the discussion guys.

[Byblos]

I think we need to ask ourselves if the gospel has the power to save. If an unbeliever hears someone preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that enough for one to then be able to make a "free-will" choice to accept Christ. The power is in the gospel, correct? And, since the primary way that God saves us, is by the preaching of the gospel, then, there must be a power to save in the gospel itself?

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

1. A large part of the problem is the nature of faith. If you define faith as a commodity that God gives (in the Augustinian tradition) and then insist that anything that denies that definition is in some way Pelagian, then you've created what I think is a false dichotomy. Again, one can be anti-Augustinian and deny that faith is a commodity (put positively, one can assert that faith is a natural capacity of man) and keep the issues of semi-pelagianism separate (namely, the role of grace in the attainment of salvation).

Jac, I see what you're saying here, but I think while faith is a natural capacity of man, God created man, and God gave man faith.

Rick are you certain you're not arguing FOR TD?

[jlay]

It seems there are only four choices in the matter.

-Atonement is limited but fully effective, as in 5PC, where only the sins of the elect are paid for. (As it relates to the discussion, this one of two options if TD is true.)
-Atonement is universal and all are saved regardless. Universalism. (TD can still be true.)
-Atonement is potentially universal, but its application is limited conditionally to those who will have faith. Christ died, but it doesn't 'take' unless someone has faith. Forgiveness is potential, and beleif what applies forgiveness. Arminianism and some modified Calvinism.
-Atonement is universal. The world's sin issue is settled and paid in full at the cross. Salvation is a son issue, (written in the book of life) not a sin issue.

I am open to correction on these, and they could probably be better worded.

You evidently missed the part where I said this issue raises a conundrum for me since I am basically disagreeing with the Church.

Then you are anathema.

Byb, I had the exact same thought after reading Rick's post.

[PaulSacramento]

The issue seems to me to be one of faith and how one gets faith.
The consensus is that ALL that have faith in Christ will be saved.
The issue is HOW does one get that faith.
Of course is one is predestined to have faith then, is it really faith at all?

[Byblos]

You evidently missed the part where I said this issue raises a conundrum for me since I am basically disagreeing with the Church.

Then you are anathema.

Lol J, evidently yet again you missed the part where I said I deferred to the church where I disagree.

Byb, I had the exact same thought after reading Rick's post.

Yeah, he confused me there for a minute.

[RickD]

I think we need to ask ourselves if the gospel has the power to save. If an unbeliever hears someone preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that enough for one to then be able to make a "free-will" choice to accept Christ. The power is in the gospel, correct? And, since the primary way that God saves us, is by the preaching of the gospel, then, there must be a power to save in the gospel itself?

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

1. A large part of the problem is the nature of faith. If you define faith as a commodity that God gives (in the Augustinian tradition) and then insist that anything that denies that definition is in some way Pelagian, then you've created what I think is a false dichotomy. Again, one can be anti-Augustinian and deny that faith is a commodity (put positively, one can assert that faith is a natural capacity of man) and keep the issues of semi-pelagianism separate (namely, the role of grace in the attainment of salvation).

Jac, I see what you're saying here, but I think while faith is a natural capacity of man, God created man, and God gave man faith.

Rick are you certain you're not arguing FOR TD?

Byblos, I may be. But I'm not arguing for TD, as defined by 5pt Calvinism.

[RickD]

You evidently missed the part where I said this issue raises a conundrum for me since I am basically disagreeing with the Church.

Then you are anathema.

Lol J, evidently yet again you missed the part where I said I deferred to the church where I disagree.

Byb, I had the exact same thought after reading Rick's post.

Yeah, he confused me there for a minute.

Byblos, what did I say that was confusing? Maybe I can clear it up.

[Byblos]

Byblos, what did I say that was confusing? Maybe I can clear it up.

Well first you site 1 Corinthians 1:18 which is big time TD territory, then you disagree with Jac that faith is from God, which is also big time 5PC territory (not to mention the other C word ). For a second there I thought you flipped sides . I know what you're saying Rick and for the most part I do agree with it. My thing is I refuse to discount Calvinism and particularly TD because I honestly haven't seen a convincing argument against pelagianism (semi or otherwise). Jac's comes real close. I don't have an intellectual rebuttal for it but I still feel it is just dancing around the issue and that there are truly only 2 positions with no false dichotomy.

[narnia4]

Again, I'm not going to re-enter the fray at this time or give my opinion straight out (although I suppose somebody could guess it, but like I said I hate leaving unfinished arguments), but I will give the opinion of some of the Reformed that I've read. Let's say that someone asks "What must I do in order to be saved?" A Calvinist might claim that his is the only position that could answer that question by saying "Absolutely nothing". Your average Christian in the US may say that you must "Ask Jesus into your heart" or else, as it was put earlier, someone might say "will to believe, to trust" or even "stop doing anything to attain salvation". But that person cannot truthfully say that this person must do absolutely nothing in order to be saved. Even if you had to "stop trying to earn salvation", then "stopping" would be your part in the salvation process. If you want to involve free will at all in the process, could it be otherwise?

That's what some Calvinists would say. I do find the idea of monergism without committing to Calvinism interesting, its definitely an issue I'll look into when I pursue the subject again. Of course, if someone does want to commit to a sort of synergism than that's something that would need to be addressed as well. Also should mention that were it to be proved that this isn't a false dichotomy, that there could be three or even four choices, that by itself would do nothing to show which position is actually correct. It would expand your options, sure.

[RickD]

Byblos, what did I say that was confusing? Maybe I can clear it up.

Well first you site 1 Corinthians 1:18 which is big time TD territory, then you disagree with Jac that faith is from God, which is also big time 5PC territory (not to mention the other C word ). For a second there I thought you flipped sides . I know what you're saying Rick and for the most part I do agree with it. My thing is I refuse to discount Calvinism and particularly TD because I honestly haven't seen a convincing argument against pelagianism (semi or otherwise). Jac's comes real close. I don't have an intellectual rebuttal for it but I still feel it is just dancing around the issue and that there are truly only 2 positions with no false dichotomy.

Byblos, first on the supposed disagreement with Jac saying faith is from God. I said:

Jac, I see what you're saying here, but I think while faith is a natural capacity of man, God created man, and God gave man faith.

I absolutely believe faith is from God. While I agreed with Jac, that faith is a natural capacity of man, so is a conscience. But, God created man, with a spirit, in which faith is a part. Does that make any sense. I never knew Calvinists had copyrights on 1 Corinthians 1:18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I don't see how that verse promotes TD. I see it as saying that to those who aren't Christians, the gospel is foolish. And to us, the power is in Christ's work. Where's the TD in that?

Byblos, it's ok to disagree with the Catholic Church, from time to time. I've been known to disagree with the Catholic Church... on extremely rare occasions.

[RickD]

Again, I'm not going to re-enter the fray at this time or give my opinion straight out (although I suppose somebody could guess it, but like I said I hate leaving unfinished arguments), but I will give the opinion of some of the Reformed that I've read. Let's say that someone asks "What must I do in order to be saved?" A Calvinist might claim that his is the only position that could answer that question by saying "Absolutely nothing". Your average Christian in the US may say that you must "Ask Jesus into your heart" or else, as it was put earlier, someone might say "will to believe, to trust" or even "stop doing anything to attain salvation". But that person cannot truthfully say that this person must do absolutely nothing in order to be saved. Even if you had to "stop trying to earn salvation", then "stopping" would be your part in the salvation process. If you want to involve free will at all in the process, could it be otherwise?

That's what some Calvinists would say. I do find the idea of monergism without committing to Calvinism interesting, its definitely an issue I'll look into when I pursue the subject again. Of course, if someone does want to commit to a sort of synergism than that's something that would need to be addressed as well. Also should mention that were it to be proved that this isn't a false dichotomy, that there could be three or even four choices, that by itself would do nothing to show which position is actually correct. It would expand your options, sure.

Or, Narnia, you could convert to Arminianism.

[neo-x]

Byblos

Okay so some exercise their act of the will to affirm God's gift and some to deny it. It boils down to an act of will of the person, independent of anything else, therefore at a minimum semi-pelagian.

My thing is I refuse to discount Calvinism and particularly TD because I honestly haven't seen a convincing argument against pelagianism (semi or otherwise). Jac's comes real close. I don't have an intellectual rebuttal for it but I still feel it is just dancing around the issue and that there are truly only 2 positions with no false dichotomy.

If I may clear a bit here. i think it is quite unfair to directly label man's choice as semi-pelagian or pelagian without working out the vaguness of the words we are using to describe these ideas.

A good question is, how much is man's choice contributing to salvation.
Another one is, why are you starting with a bias towards TD s in the Calvinistic definition. It makes an unfair case in other words "If you do not agree with me, you are wrong, it doesn't matter what you say."

Any case against Calvinism is either labeled arminian or pelagian. These terms are associated with heresy and everyone non-Calvinist is just lumped in it.

By the way, the important question, does man's choice to believe adds anything to God's work of salvation? I belief this to be the core of the issue.

First, let me say, If I get a present for you on your birthday, and give it to you and all you had to do was to just take out of hands. Would you say that you have a part in attaining you gift? Yes you would say, that you took it out of my hands, that was the long and short of it. Now, if you tell everyone later that you got yourself a gift, would it make an iota of sense if you claimed that you had a part in the actual buying, wrapping or presenting of that gift to you? You had a part but it was only that you took the thing in your hands and that was it. There is nothing more you are entitled to, in this act. You had no contribution of any kind, in the value, beauty, and the actually process of buying that gift. No, you can't say that you took the gift from someone and that now you somehow are a partaker in the act. In other words, you somehow gave yourself the gift? Tell me, does that make any sense to you?

Lets see it another way, your father throws you a surprise party after a vacation overboard. What exactly would you have to do or your part in the actual preparation and activities of the party? Its a surprise party right? so you have no knowledge of anything, except when you are surprised that are standing in the middle of all your friends and family who have prepared something for you. Now again, would you say you have a part in the act? I'd say yes, as far as you go and enjoy that party, you have a part, but does this part in anyway implies that you actually added to the efforts of your father and friends or the preparation of that party? You can't say, I was part of the plan, because then you yourself threw a party for yourself without knowing it, right? That simply makes no sense, IMO. You can't claim that you had a hand in planning the party , you simply enjoyed it, yes its an act, but does that adds your credit anywhere to the actual planning and carrying out of the arrangements? BIG NO.

So I think here is the vagueness that most people just slide by. Is man's choice to receive Christ IN ANYWAY ADDS SOMETHING TO SALVATION?....RESOUNDING NO. Man's choice does not add one bit in the work of salvation. Man can not claim he freed himself, he just choose to accept that gift from God, does that make him a partaker in the gift of salvation, how so? I can not see it. His acceptance adds nothing to the gift of salvation at all, he hasn't paid for it, he hasn't brought it neither did he knew before hand that such a thing was present for him.

In other words, If I brought a car, I can't say, because I own the car and I went to buy it that I have a a part in the making of car itself. Sounds absurd right, that is how absurd it looks when anyone is labeled semi-pelagian or pelagian when they are not but simply because they do not agree, they are made victims of the false label.

Please let me know what you think?

[Byblos]

Byblos

Okay so some exercise their act of the will to affirm God's gift and some to deny it. It boils down to an act of will of the person, independent of anything else, therefore at a minimum semi-pelagian.

My thing is I refuse to discount Calvinism and particularly TD because I honestly haven't seen a convincing argument against pelagianism (semi or otherwise). Jac's comes real close. I don't have an intellectual rebuttal for it but I still feel it is just dancing around the issue and that there are truly only 2 positions with no false dichotomy.

If I may clear a bit here. i think it is quite unfair to directly label man's choice as semi-pelagian or pelagian without working out the vaguness of the words we are using to describe these ideas.

It may be unfair but I honestly don't see any way around it when at the core I only see 2 positions. I am not saying I'm not open for correction, in fact holding the Catholic position myself by default creates for me a 3rd position (thereby creating the false dichotomy in my argument, I quite freely admit that). But again, it doesn't change the fact that I may have personal reservations about such a position, which puts me back where I started, with only 2 positions. (does this even make any sense? I wonder).

A good question is, how much is man's choice contributing to salvation.

Let's assume for a minute that indeed there only 2 position (as my personal dilemma is leaving me with), then the obvious answer to this question is: if anything then it's not by grace alone.

Another one is, why are you starting with a bias towards TD s in the Calvinistic definition. It makes an unfair case in other words "If you do not agree with me, you are wrong, it doesn't matter what you say."

I'm certainly not discounting anyone's opinion on the matter but if I am to be honest with myself and with struggles I face vis-a-vis the subject matter then I am left with no other choice but to see TD in the Calvinistic definition on one side and everything else on the other.

Any case against Calvinism is either labeled arminian or pelagian. These terms are associated with heresy and everyone non-Calvinist is just lumped in it.

That may be the case yes, but I don't think that changes the way I'm presenting my issue with the subject matter.

By the way, the important question, does man's choice to believe adds anything to God's work of salvation? I belief this to be the core of the issue.

I agree

First, let me say, If I get a present for you on your birthday, and give it to you and all you had to do was to just take out of hands. Would you say that you have a part in attaining you gift? Yes you would say, that you took it out of my hands, that was the long and short of it. Now, if you tell everyone later that you got yourself a gift, would it make an iota of sense if you claimed that you had a part in the actual buying, wrapping or presenting of that gift to you? You had a part but it was only that you took the thing in your hands and that was it. There is nothing more you are entitled to, in this act. You had no contribution of any kind, in the value, beauty, and the actually process of buying that gift. No, you can't say that you took the gift from someone and that now you somehow are a partaker in the act. In other words, you somehow gave yourself the gift? Tell me, does that make any sense to you?

I understand the analogies Neo, remember I'm pretty much in the same camp so I've used these very same analogies countless times myself. The questions that come to mind are 1) is a gift still a gift unless it is actually accepted (i.e. cooperated with the gift giving process in some way)? and 2) why is it that some do accept the gift and some reject it?

The standard answer to 1) is that accepting the gift is passive cooperation. Okay, fine but it still does require something from us for justification to take place, otherwise it does not take place. The standard answer to 2) is that love cannot be forced, which is pretty much the same as 1), i.e. it is not only the gift that matters, but also the synergy between the gift giving and the acceptance or rejection of such.

Lets see it another way, your father throws you a surprise party after a vacation overboard. What exactly would you have to do or your part in the actual preparation and activities of the party? Its a surprise party right? so you have no knowledge of anything, except when you are surprised that are standing in the middle of all your friends and family who have prepared something for you. Now again, would you say you have a part in the act? I'd say yes, as far as you go and enjoy that party, you have a part, but does this part in anyway implies that you actually added to the efforts of your father and friends or the preparation of that party? You can't say, I was part of the plan, because then you yourself threw a party for yourself without knowing it, right? That simply makes no sense, IMO. You can't claim that you had a hand in planning the party , you simply enjoyed it, yes its an act, but does that adds your credit anywhere to the actual planning and carrying out of the arrangements? BIG NO.

Same type of analogy that raises the same basic questions in my mind, if I walk out on the surprise party, is it still a party? So it is my cooperation with or rejection of this surprise party that actually makes it or denies it as a party.

So I think here is the vagueness that most people just slide by. Is man's choice to receive Christ IN ANYWAY ADDS SOMETHING TO SALVATION?....RESOUNDING NO. Man's choice does not add one bit in the work of salvation. Man can not claim he freed himself, he just choose to accept that gift from God, does that make him a partaker in the gift of salvation, how so? I can not see it. His acceptance adds nothing to the gift of salvation at all, he hasn't paid for it, he hasn't brought it neither did he knew before hand that such a thing was present for him.

No one is claiming that without CTD (Calvinist TD that is) one would be saving themselves. But it does put us in the position to have to defend our stance in so much as we now have to explain what the nature of faith is, whether or not accepting a gift is considering doing something, etc, etc.

In other words, If I brought a car, I can't say, because I own the car and I went to buy it that I have a a part in the making of car itself. Sounds absurd right, that is how absurd it looks when anyone is labeled semi-pelagian or pelagian when they are not but simply because they do not agree, they are made victims of the false label.

As I said Neo, these are labels that I am trying to shed off my own back so no disparaging intended to others. And one more time for the record, I do not believe in CTD myself. Am I absolutely convinced it is unbiblical? Sorry, at this juncture I can confidently say that I am not.

[jlay]

Any case against Calvinism is either labeled arminian or pelagian. These terms are associated with heresy and everyone non-Calvinist is just lumped in it

That is a very good point. And it would seem that no one took the time to read the article I linked earlier in the discussion. It goes into some of the fundamental foundations of how the doctrine developed.

A good question is, how much is man's choice contributing to salvation.

That is one of the questions dealt with. And I think it is due to a lack of understanding of what constitutes belief and just what exactly is the will. Is man willing his salvation. The article says this, "It is not the will of a person that makes a decision but the person acting by means of his will."

http://faithalone.org/journal/2003i/badger.pdf

I've read a lot of analogies similar to the one's you present. I think they are basically on the money, as much as our analogies can be. They all fail at some point, because all things between,.. say a gift and salvation are not synonomous.
A similar one is a man who is in lost at sea in the middle of the ocean and destined to drown. The coast guard comes along and throws the man a life line. He is asked to grab the line and put it under his arms. He complies and is pulled to saftey. Later he is asked how he was rescued and says, "I rescued myself, by putting the life line on." Anyone would see the absurdity of this claim that trusting the commands of the rescuer actually caused his rescue. This presents an interesting point because we can see on one hand the cooperative role. If the man refused to trust what was offered he would have perished. And, we can see the total provision of the rescuer. The means of rescue with the boat, the lifeline, etc. And, the strength to pull the victim to safety. So, the man cooperated, and the man's salvation was completely accomplished without his doing, or initiating.

The problem with this analogy is that it is not as obvious to man, regarding his sin, that he is in peril and needs to be rescued. I think this is also a good way to look at how a man is "dead in his sin." A man in the middle of the ocean is a dead man, apart from rescue.
If we took this same analogy I would see TD this way. There is an ocean full of drowning people. In fact they are corpses in the water. You can't throw them a line, because, being dead, they can't take hold of it. The rescuer picks some to be pulled out of the water and resusictated, and others are passed over, arbitrarily. Of course, if they are dead as such, they also cannot deny the rescuer, resist him, prefer drowning, (John 3:19) or attempt through their own efforts to save themselves. In John 3 faith is presented as a response regarding a specific revelation, (John 3:18)"because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Let's assume for a minute that indeed there only 2 position (as my personal dilemma is leaving me with), then the obvious answer to this question is: if anything then it's not by grace alone

.
I think that is important. The Bible doesn't actually ever say "grace alone." You won't find that phrase in a Bible. It says, by grace you are saved, through faith. And Paul is quick to say, that this (salvation) is not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God. Paul is also helpful to show us that faith is not a work. (Romans 4:5) So, since faith is not a work, man cannot boast on his being convinced that the gospel saves him.

Here is an article by Strong Calvinist and TD believer, Sproul. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/ ... ne-sproul/
I don't think you'll find too many that argue the 5PC position better today. The reason I post is it reminded my of Bybs objecitons. Obviously, I think he makes fundental errors in what constitutes faith among other things. Jac, I'd love to hear your rebuttal.