T - Total Depravity (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 1)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Alright, after doing five points of introduction to the Five Points of Calvinism, today I'll begin talking about them with the first letter of the Tulip - T, which stands for Total Depravity. Let's begin with a pretty straightforward defintion from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).

I agree with that definition wholeheartedly - now let me try to unpack it a bit. Notice that this says that sin extends to every part of man's personality, or being. It means that sin permeates every part of man, but it doesn't mean that man is as bad as he could be. I used to think that is what "total depravity" meant. In fact, I used to tell people that, when I was first learning about it. I don't know where I got the idea, but that is not what total depravity means. For that reason, I would prefer not to use the term "total depravity" when speaking of man's sinful condition. In his book Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul prefers the phrase "radical corruption." I agree with R. C. in this regard. "Total Depravity" conveys some ideas that we probably shouldn't convey. True, man is depraved, but it's taking things too far to say that his depravity is total. There are several factors that keep man's depravity from being as total as it could be.

The first is the fact that man has been created in the image of God. Being in the image of God in and of itself puts some restraint on man's depravity. Further, even unregenerate man has the law of God written on his heart according to Romans 2:14-15. This, in and of itself is enough to restrain much of the sin in our hearts. Also, we must not forget the doctrine of common grace. In His common grace, for the good of mankind and the world He has created, God restrains evil in this world. Jonathan Edwards once spoke of such things when he commented on what a terrible world this would be if only Christians had the ability to love, if only Christians had the ability to care for their children and be good neighbors and things like this. In His common grace, God enables all men to do "civic good," for the good of civilization.

The above comments reflect a hobbyhorse of mine. I do think that Calvinists need to preface their remarks on the sinfulness of man by such considerations. I would also like to see those who design evangelistic tracts and programs to address these things. Often, the first thing a Calvinist wants to talk about is the sinfulness of man.  The more hard bitten Calvinists seem to take a perverse glee in describing man in the most awful terms they can.  And, evangelistic programs usually jump straight from God's wonderful plan for your life or something like that straight into man's sinfulness. In both cases, they are basically right, but they miss the import of what it means to be created in the image of God.

In my opinion, the sinfulness of man makes no sense apart from understanding man's creation in the image of God. It is our identity as image bearers that renders sin so sinful. Furthermore, sin is a parasite. Man was created upright, not sinful according to Ecclesiastes 7:29. Sin is not the essence of what it means to be human. The essence of being human is being an image bearer. To be human is to be made in the image of God. To be sinful is to be an aberration of being human.

With this as a backdrop we can understand the sinfulness of sin. The sinfulness of sin doesn't arise from our failure to be obey a divine law. Failure to obey divine laws are the evidence of sin, not the essence of sin. The sinfulness of sin isn't mere wrongdoing. An image of a king is a display of the glory of that king. This is why rulers, from time immemorial have placed statues and paintings of themselves all over their land. The image of the ruler is a manifestation of the glory of that ruler. The sinfulness of sin is found in exchanging the glory of the creator for the glory of the creature. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, this wasn't merely a failure to obey an order, it was a declaration of independence. We here in America know all about this - our declaration of independence was a declaration that King George would not rule over us. Adam and Eve's tasting of the fruit was a declaration that God would not rule over them. When they did this the image of God was defaced by the image of man. Think of someone taking a big wide black paint brush and swiping it across the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is still there, but you can't look at the Mona Lisa without seeing the black paint. Similarly, in man, the image of God is still there, but you can't see the image of God without seeing the sin that mars it. Man's nature was changed at the fall. At the fall, sin penetrated man's psyche with a desire for independence.  This desire for independence became like food coloring - it permeates everything to which it applies.  Thus, even when man does "civic good" there is still a motive of independence, or self-glorification.

Theologians speak of the fourfold state of man as follows:

1. The State of Innocence - in the garden before the fall. It was possible for man to sin, and possible for him to not sin.

2. The State of Fallenness - after the fall. It is not possible for man not to sin.

3. The State of Redemption - after regeneration. It is possible for man to sin and possible for man not to sin.

4. The State of Glorification - for the believer, after death. It will not be possible for man to sin.

When we speak of man's radical corruption we are speaking of man in his fallen state. Sin has corrupted every fiber of man's being, both soul and body.  Also, in the state of regeneration sin is still present, though it has lost it's hold on us.  This by the way is another reason I like Sproul's term "radical corruption" better than "total depravity."  It is hard for me to envision a regenerate believer as "totally depraved," based on Romans 6 which speaks of our freedom from sin.  God not only gives us the gift of justification, but He also gives us the gift of sanctification by which He, progressively, pushes back the depravity in our lives.  On the other hand, the term "radical corruption," still works for the regenerate as a good term to describe the Romans 7 war with sin.  But, I digress.

There is a particular emphasis that Calvinists speak of when talking about this subject, and that is man's ability to exercise saving faith. We acknowledge that man has the ability to exercise civic good, and we acknowledge that the law written on the heart restrains some of his sinful tendencies. But, in his fallen state, man will never will to believe savingly on Jesus Christ. This is where the water meets the wheel for the Calvinist. The Calvinist asks the question "apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, is it possible for man to believe savingly on Jesus Christ?" The Calvinist believes the Scripture answers "no" to that question. Here are a few direct Scripture references in that regard.

Genesis 6:5 - The Lord saw how great man?s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time

Psalm 14:1-3 - 1The fool says in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. 2The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 - There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Romans 3:10-12 - 10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

There are a few metaphors in the Bible that deal with this:

Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

In this passage, we see that we have the same ability to transform our sinful hearts as a leopard has to change his spots.

Romans 6:16-18 - Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey? Whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness. 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Ephesians 2:1 - As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Keeping the Romans and Ephesians passages in mind, the Calvinist would say that a slave doesn't obey his own will, he obeys the master's will. The master controls his will. Also, just as a physically dead person can't will himself to physical life, so a spiritually dead person can't will himself to spiritual life.

There are a couple of pushbacks that I have heard prominently mentioned in this regard. There is one that I only heard once, but it was so novel I thought I would share it with you. A friend of mine once said that Psalm 14 and Romans 3:10-12 were speaking hyperbolically. In other words, what was being conveyed here isn't that none seek after God but that most don't seek after God. I don't find that persuasive - there is nothing in the text or anywhere else in the bible that would suggest otherwise.

The second pushback is that sin has affected every part of man except for his will. There still remains within man an ability to choose God. This comes in two forms. One form is simply to say that the fall didn't destroy man's ability to believe savingly on Christ. The other way is to speak of prevenient grace. The prevenient grace view acknowledges that in the fall, man lost the ability to believe savingly, but the death and resurrection of Christ has the universal benefit of restoring to man the ability to believe. Those who hold the prevenient grace view aren't universalists and they don't believe that man will necessarily believe, but he becomes able to believe. My answer to both of those views would be to simply note that Paul is writing post fall and post resurrection. His metaphors of man as dead in sin and in slavery to sin apply to all men outside of Christ. His description of mankind as those for whom none seeks God applies to all men outside of Christ.

I would also point out that the view I am arguing against separates will and action to some degree. It assumes that we are depraved in that we can't do anything pleasing to God, yet we still have the ability to will in favor of belief in God. I submit that these folks don't grasp the biblical link between will and actions, or between heart and deed. Luke 6:43-45 speaks to this:

No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Bad deeds spring from a bad heart. Or should I say that bad deeds are evident of a bad heart. It is no stretch of logic to equate a bad heart with a bad will. We violate the law of God because our will does not want to obey the law of God. But someone might say, "true, the heart may not will to obey the law of God, but it can will to believe savingly on Christ." Again, I ask you to consider Jesus' view of things. John 6:29 says:

Jesus answered, The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

If we say that our sinfulness renders us unable to obey God, are we not saying that it renders us unable to do the works of God. And if our sinfulness renders us unable to do the works of God, does it not render us unable to do the one work that God requires - to believe in Jesus. There is another Scripture that helps us in this regard. I John 5:1 says:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Good News Publishers: Wheaton

The English Standard Version is the only version of the Bible I know of that has translated that passage correctly. All of the other translations say something along the lines of "everyone who believes is born of God." The difference is in the words "has been" and "is." Those translations that render I John 5:1 with the word "is" suggest that belief and being born of God are simultaneous because both appear to be in a present tense. The ESV renders "everyone who believes" in a present tense, and "has been born" in a past tense. Just to prove I am not making this up to suit my theology I want to mention that the words here translated "has been" are in the perfect tense. Here are a couple of descriptions of the perfect tense from a Greek Grammar:

1. Intensive. Here the perfect should be translated with the full force of its perfect aspect, that is, emphasizing a state and assuming that a previous action has led to that state.

2. Culminative (Completed Action). While the intensive perfect focuses on the continuing results, the culminative looks at the past action or series of actions the results of which continue to the present.
Chapman, B. 1994. Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.). Stylus Publishing: Quakertown, PA

The important point to note here is that, whether we believe this is an intensive or culminative perfect, in both cases, the present state is a result of a past action. In I John 5:1, the state of belief is the present state, the past action is being born of God. Thus, being born of God precedes believingin Christ. I'll come back to this Scripture when I talk about the "I" in the TULIP - irresistible grace. But the point I am making here is to note, contrary to those who believe that man still has a natural ability to believe, that belief is the result of regeneration, it is not something that man has within him. So, this is where the TULIP begins, although, as I have said, I follow Sproul's terminology in thinking that "radical corruption" is a better term for describing man's sinfulness.

There are those who want to keep using the word "total" here and they speak of "total inability." I like that phrase just fine, as long as we keep in mind that this refers to a total inability to believe savingly in Christ. I still want to praise God for giving us a world where even unregenerate man is able to do civic good and I am quite thankful for many good neighbors that I have had over the years who don't share my evangelical faith, but have still been a great common grace blessing of God to me.

This post doesn't deal with all of the ins and outs of the subject of free will. Before I move on to talk about the second point of the TULIP I plan to do a post on this subject.  For those who would like a few of my thoughts on that matter, here is a link to my post titled "Do the Reformed Believe in Free Will."

The rest of the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints

 

Comments

[rebecca]

You know, I think the term "radical" is taking on a meaning pretty close to "total", so I'm not sure it's the best replacement. If you asked my youngest child what "radical" meant, I don't think he'd see much difference between that word and "total".

My suggestions for a replacement are "summary depravity" or "comprehensive depravity". Although I'm not really sure that a new term is needed. Theological terms always have theological definitions, and anyone who doesn't understand this is going to have wrong ideas about a whole lot more than total depravity.

[David Wayne]

Good point Rebecca - about theological terms having theologican definitions. I've run into that in discussions on inerrancy. It has a theological meaning that is very different from what its critics argue against. Thanks for the comment.

[dopderbeck]

Great post! A few things I'm chewing on, as one who self-identifies as neither Calvinist nor Arminian:

The exegesis of 1 John 5:1 is interesting, but what of the many, many other passages that suggest belief is an act of the will that a person is free to choose or not choose. There are at least two interesting things about many of these passages: 1. they portray consequences that hinge on a person's choice to believe or not; and 2. many of them indicate that God was providing evidence of His redemptive plan through miracles, particularly at the time of Christ, and was holding people accountable for accepting or rejecting that testimony.

It seems that one particularly difficult passage for a strong Calvinist position is the story of the jailer in Acts 16. He asks Paul and Silas, "what must I do to be saved?" It seems that if the strong Calvinist position were correct, Paul and Silas should have replied "You don't get it. You can't 'do' anything to be saved." Instead, they told him "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." (Acts 16:31). Were they offering him a genuine choice or not? If not, isn't this story misleading?

Some of the other references to "belief" or "believe" are below. Of course, these are just examples from a word search of the English term "believe" in the NIV, and we need to be wary of proof texting. And not all of them are soteriological. Yet, it seems that the whole counsel of scripture doesn't fully agree with the notion that total depravity eliminates a person's ability to choose to believe.

In fact, even the concept that not everyone is "as bad off as he could be" seems inconsistent with the position that total depravity eliminates the ability to choose belief. Why would the effects of sin be mitigated by the imago Dei in every other area of life but faith? Again, it seems to me that a more consistent position says people are capable of choosing faith just as they are capable of choosing to do good deeds, even though those capabilities are limited by sin. True, the full capacity to do good works or have faith isn't realized absent initiative from God, and that is the other side of the coin (God's sovereignty). Yet both genuine free will and the full sovereignty of God coexist -- an antinomy we can never understand.

Some references:

Gen. 15:6 -- "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness."

Num. 14:11 -- "The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?"

Ps. 78:32 -- "In spite of all this, they kept on sinning; in spite of his wonders, they did not believe."

Jonah 3:5 -- "The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth."

Matt 8:13 -- "Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour."

Matt. 21:22 -- "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Mark 5:36 -- "Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, "Don't be afraid; just believe."

Mark 11:23 -- "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him."

Mark 16:14 -- "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen."

Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Luke 1:45 -- "Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"

John 1:12-13 -- "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God–-- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."

John 2:22 -- "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

John 2:23 -- "Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name."

John 3:16-18 -- 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[6] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

John 4:39 -- "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did."

John 5:24 -- "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Acts 9:41-43 -- "He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord. Peter stayed in Joppa for some time with a tanner named Simon."

Acts 13:12 -- "When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord."

Acts 28:24 -- "Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe."

And so on.

[Rey]

Also your friend’s comment about Romans 3 should bear closer examination. His summary may be off but there is much in the text that supports what he’s pointing at without drawing his specific conclusion.

You know (more than anyone in the Blogdom, I’m sure) that Paul is pulling from various poetic sources when formulating the condition of man especially when verses10 through 12 sit right next to 13 through 18 with obvious hyperbolic language (ie: the throat as an open grave, the tongue practicing, poison the lips, mouths overflowing with cursing, feet constantly running to shed blood, their path marked by misery and ruinous destruction).

Also Romans 3 is in context of both Jews and Greeks being under the condemnation of sin of which they’re all besmirched with and not referring to a supposed inability to choose in favor of God. Indeed, the Moralist in chapter 2 stands on God’s side but continues to sin storing up wrath for himself.

Rather Paul is pushing away the idea that men can Do (2) by showing that men Don’t (1:18 – 3:23) and that God has Done (3:21-22) and we must Depend (3:21-31). Since the Depend part is relying completely on what God has Done there is no boasting.

But in the end, you’ve been down this road a million times (as have I), and are an obvious student and teacher of the Word. One day we’ll sit in glory and compare notes, but for now there’s my comment. Let the wolves come. Heh.

[Rey]

By the way, great comment dopderbeck.

[Jeremy Pierce]

David O, it seems to me that a Calvinist will agree with everything you say, which makes me think you're dealing with a straw man of Calvinism (not that the straw man of Calvinism doesn't exist -- it's called a hyperCalvinist).

I like the change from radical or total to comprehensive. As with inerrancy, these terms have taken on a meaning that those who don't know their technical use won't get. That doesn't mean we should change the words we use. It means we should clarify what they mean as opposed to what people are likely to think they mean if they don't know. So I think the alternative expressions should be used, but I think they should be clarifications of the classic terminology, which has become so ingrained that it's virtually hopeless to undo it.

[dopderbeck]

Jeremy -- Maybe my comment came across a bit too argumentative -- I really wasn't intending to argue against Calvinism (or my perhaps mistaken understanding of it) but mostly to ask some questions. I guess I'm kind of agnostic as to my position here and want to explore the parameters.

So, if the Calvinist's understanding of total depravity doesn't eliminate a person's ability to choose belief, isn't the debate just semantic? If Arminians say anyone can choose to believe or not, and Calvinists say the same thing, what's the difference?

My understanding of Calvinism is that those who are not among the elect cannot possibly believe, and that those who are among the elect believe only because God gives them the gift of faith and not because of any choice they make to believe. If the latter is true, it seems that the jailer's question in Acts 16 would be meaningless and Paul's response misleading.

[Jon Cohen]

dopberbeck,

Calvinism holds that though we make choices, the choices we make were destined by God. The language in everyday discourse and in the Bible refers to people making choices, but at a deeper level it is God who is really making the choices, because God created and sustains the universe through his will. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb 1:3)

God presents us with these choices, which we make according to His will acting though our own, so that we will be prepared for the new Heaven and Earth.

Regarding hyperbole, I think that whenever someone says that about a passage you know they are flattening it, and there is so much to be gained by struggling to really understand it. The same applies to supposedly metaphorical passages.

[David Wayne]

David - I agree with Jeremy's comments. Your argument that, if the imago dei preserves man's ability to do civic good, why wouldn't it preserve man's ability to believe is a good one. I hadn't heard it put that way before. My knee jerk reaction is to say that civic good is not the same thing as spiritual good. For a work to be considered spiritually good it must be done out of a true faith, in obedience to a commmand for God, out of love for God and for the glory of God. As such, an unbeliever, by definition, could not do a good work in that sense. So, I would distinguish between civic good and spiritual good in that sense. I would say that the imago dei is not sufficient to enable someone to do spiritual good, nor to believe.
Also, I agree with what Jeremy says - you are arguing against a hyper-Calvinism that most of us would deny. Maybe an illustration would help. One of my seminary profs said that we ought to think of God as the director of a play who wrote Himself a role in the play. As director, He has decreed all that will come to pass. As actor in the play, He causes things to fall out according to our choices and decisions and He interacts with us. The Westminster Confession speaks of God's decrees falling out according to secondary causes which can be either necessary, contingent, or some other way I can't recall at the moment. I know this doesn't answer all of the questions, but hopefully it gives you an understanding of how many of us Calvinists view things.

[David Wayne]

Rey - sorry, I didn't follow what you were getting at in some of your comments. I do think that the when Romans 3 says that none seeks after God that its pretty clear. Since none seeks after God, I don't see how we could say that anyone truly chooses God, apart from regeneration.

[Sozo]

David,

Good post! I'm still mulling over a few things, but I want to make a comment on 1 John 5:1.

First, I agree with the tenses as rendered by the ESV. It's very natural that our current state of belief is preceded by being "born again". However, using just this verse, I don't see how you can rule out belief as a part of the "born again" experience as well. I think that you'd have to read some preconceived ideas into what being "born again" means to come to that conclusion.

So, go ahead, tell me how I'm wrong. :-)

[dopderbeck]

Thanks guys, for the clarification ... I think. Actually, it still isn't clear to me. (BTW, I'm very sensitive these days to being "argumentative" both in person and online. I hope I'm contributing to the conversation. If not, David, delete my stuff and I'll stay offline).

A few things I find confusing: isn't separating "civic good" from "spiritual good" slicing the salami a bit too thin? Can good works, even genuine faith, really be separated into such neat categories? When an unbeliever cares for a dying relative, for example, is there no "spiritual" component to that good work? Or when an unbelieving artist paints a glorious picture that reflects the creative aspect of the imago Dei, is it simply a "civic" good and nothing spiritual? This seems like some kind of Hellenistic dualism more than the holistic picture of human nature and moral action the Bible seems to present.

As to the metaphor of the play actor/director, that's interesting. Maybe it's just the limits of metaphor, but a play director doesn't really determine everything that will happen when the play is performed, does he? Rather, he sets parameters and gives instructions, but once the performance starts, the actors are free to disregard them. (They will suffer consequences for that, but they're still free to do so.) Further, even if the actors stay within the director's parameters, they add detail and nuance through their individual performances that isn't dictated by the director. And even if the director is also an actor in the play, his performance at most sets parameters to which the other actors will respond. If the actor/director says his line, "who goes there," the other actor remains free to respond "a ham sandwich" rather than "Banquo's ghost" as written in the script. Again, the diffident actor will probably get fired, but he can accept that consequence and say the funny line rather than the correct one if he so chooses.

It seems a closer analogy would be that of a puppeteer and marionettes. The marionettes can't possibly perform in any way except as dictated by the puppeteer. Isn't that what you really want to say? Or better stated, isn't that what you really need to say? If the soft or moderate Calvinist notion God's sovereignty is simply that God sets the parameters for human choices, how does that differ materially from a soft or moderate Arminian position?

Jeremy -- I think most who lean Arminian would agree that God sets parameters on human choice because God has structured and continues to sustain creation in such a way that some choices are impossible or highly unlikely. No matter how much I might want to "choose" to flap my arms and fly away, it won't happen. No matter how much I want to earn a Ph.D. in Math, it isn't likely to happen, because I wasn't born with strengths in that area. It seems to me, though, that there's a huge gap between parameter setting and complete determinism. I could earn a Ph.D. in History, English, or Theology -- or I could choose to skip the Ph.D. and get a law degree (and realize later that was a mistake :-) ). I have a real choice within the range of possible choices.

[Rey]

Hey David,

What I'm saying is that if "No One Seeks after God" is in a hyperbolic section then it should be examined with that in mind.

[Rey]

Brother Jon,

Please don't assume a passage is being “flattened” when someone points out a metaphor. Metaphors, Simile's, Hyperbole and Analogy all give dimensionality to language. If I say “The rose is red” I’m stating an observation and if I say “The flower’s hue was blood on a body of green” I’m stating an observation but using hyperbole. The hue is not blood nor the green a body and if someone decided to say that I was stating such they would be missing the contrasting picture that I was painting (more hyperbolic language).

Study text in context and the dimensionality of the subtext surpasses all pretexts.

[Jeff]

David,

I moved to a new web host. My new URL is www.mrdawntreader.com. Any chance you could add me back to the Reformed Bloggers under the new URL?

Have a great weekend.

Jeff

[brad]

David,
I just finished a pastoral visit, and I found your post, which I read earlier today, giving me some good words to encourage a brother. He is coming out of arminianism and really struggles with assurance. He came to our church almost suicidal about six months ago, but he is now living in relative grace. We talked about knowing God and that if God has called you and revealed himself to you so that when you hear the Gospel of the Cross you confess, "That is the God I love", then you have experienced grace. Your post made me think, man cannot come to know God apart from grace. So I explained this to him and then I explained the above.
Grace to you,
brad

[Adrian Warnock]

Have decided to tag allong on this one..... pop over to my blog and see my thoughts

[Jon Cohen]

Rey,

You say that in Romans 3 that "No One Seeks after God" is hyperbole. But in that verse Paul is quoting Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; and Eccles. 7:20, and is a recurring theme elsewhere. Are they all hyperbole? Was Christ's death not necessary for some people?

Of course not. Paul is making a very specific point. In John 14:6, Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Without Jesus, people of the Old Testament could not follow God except by faith, and they all fell short. Then Paul says "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify."

So rather than hyperbole, Paul is making a specific statement about what our nature is apart from Christ.

[Rey]

Brother Jon,

The poison of vipers is literally on their lips and not a single person does any good and everyone has become worthless.

[robert]

The book "Total Depravity and Free Will" by Ira Benjamin Hezekiah proves beyond any doubt to any unbiased reader that total depravity is absolute folly with no scriptural support whatsoever. I recommend anyone pondering the subject with a quest for a thorough analysis of the subject pick up the book online at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.