Total Depravity demands damnation.

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
It is so very obvious and this fact escapes those who believe 100 percent in Total Depravity.

If you are 100 percent Total Depraved, then justice demands your damnation. Total inability demands that you can't respond in any manner to light.

Why is it that Calvinism denies this fact to "carve out" an illogical exemption for themselves?
 
It is so very obvious and this fact escapes those who believe 100 percent in Total Depravity.

If you are 100 percent Total Depraved, then justice demands your damnation. Total inability demands that you can't respond in any manner to light.

Why is it that Calvinism denies this fact to "carve out" an illogical exemption for themselves?
The Calvinistic approach to TD is not the only approach. There is not an aspect of our life and being that is not contaminated by the effect of Adam’s sin. Thus, we are completely depraved.

We cannot save ourselves simply because God cannot be obligated to do anything based on our actions or wills. Thus, we are unable to save ourselves or cause God to necessarily act in our behalf.

Doug
 
The Calvinistic approach to TD is not the only approach. There is not an aspect of our life and being that is not contaminated by the effect of Adam’s sin. Thus, we are completely depraved.

We cannot save ourselves simply because God cannot be obligated to do anything based on our actions or wills. Thus, we are unable to save ourselves or cause God to necessarily act in our behalf.

Doug

Love?

Sinners love. Jesus said they did. Love is an emotion. A quality of Divinity. It a spiritual connect that still existed in Adam after he fell. It has meaning and pleasure whether it is pure or not.

It is why love is referenced as the bond of perfection. It is exactly why God committed HIS love toward us while we were yet sinful...... Love overpowers sin.

It is impossible for God not to love. It is nearly impossible for US not to love. We often love the wrong things.
 
If you are 100 percent Total Depraved, then justice demands your damnation.

Which is why God is under no obligation to save anyone. It would be 100% just for God to let everyone go to hell.

Total inability demands that you can't respond in any manner to light.

Which is why our nature must be changed in order to respond to the Gospel. God does this as an exceptional act of mercy.

Why is it that Calvinism denies this fact to "carve out" an illogical exemption for themselves?

I just agreed with you on both parts. Where's the exemption?
 
Which is why God is under no obligation to save anyone. It would be 100% just for God to let everyone go to hell.



Which is why our nature must be changed in order to respond to the Gospel. God does this as an exceptional act of mercy.



I just agreed with you on both parts. Where's the exemption?

You claim an exception to Total Depravity for yourself. How are you Total Depraved if you are capable of responding to God?

In reality, Total Depravity is an oxymoron in Calvinism..... You actually claim God is obligated to save you because God choose you.
 
Love?

Sinners love. Jesus said they did. Love is an emotion. A quality of Divinity. It a spiritual connect that still existed in Adam after he fell. It has meaning and pleasure whether it is pure or not.

It is why love is referenced as the bond of perfection. It is exactly why God committed HIS love toward us while we were yet sinful...... Love overpowers sin.

It is impossible for God not to love. It is nearly impossible for US not to love. We often love the wrong things.
Did I say anything about love?

Doug
 
It was a response to the claim concerning contamination. Is Love contaminated?
There are two possible aspects where it might be. Lets see if we agree. I'll let you name an aspect of love that is contaminated.
The natural focus of “love” is shifted inwardly. Love itself functions as it should, but in the wrong direction, which distorts its effects, and essentially changes the focus from “others” to self.

This is how love is contaminated.

Doug
 
The natural focus of “love” is shifted inwardly. Love itself functions as it should, but in the wrong direction, which distorts its effects, and essentially changes the focus from “others” to self.

This is how love is contaminated.

Doug
Jesus said that there is no greater love than for a person to die for his friends. This is commonly used to teach limited atonement. (Just mentioning this for perspective)

Do sinners give their lives for their friends? The answer is yes. Even among sinners... there love is not always self centered.
 
Jesus said that there is no greater love than for a person to die for his friends. This is commonly used to teach limited atonement. (Just mentioning this for perspective)

Do sinners give their lives for their friends? The answer is yes. Even among sinners... there love is not always self centered.

The root of sin is selfishness. But our upbringing can and does mitigate this natural tendency so that many find ‘love of country’ or for family members and friends, but this doesn’t mean that the root of sin is not real or present or that love is always selfless.

We have to teach our children to not be selfish, to share with others, to obey us as parents. The terrible twos are called that because the child has found their voice, their will, and it is not in concert with their parents will. We don’t have to teach children to say no to us; that is the sinful nature expressing itself.

In fact, the trump card for the reality of TD/Original Sin for me is that “all have sinned”, that is nobody fails to sin!

For every action there is a cause, and the eventual root cause is a selfish motivation, which, by definition, cannot be love.

Doug
 
Last edited:
You claim an exception to Total Depravity for yourself. How are you Total Depraved if you are capable of responding to God?

In reality, Total Depravity is an oxymoron in Calvinism..... You actually claim God is obligated to save you because God choose you.

This is so nonsensical that I don't know how anyone could respond to it. I'll simply say you have a warped idea of reformed doctrine.
 
The root of sin is selfishness. But our upbringing can and does mitigate this natural tendency so that many find ‘love of country’ or for family members and friends, but this doesn’t mean that the root of sin is not real or present or that love is always selfless.

We have to teach our children to not be selfish, to share with others, to obey us as parents. The terrible twos are called that because the child has found their voice, their will, and it is not in concert with their parents will. We don’t have to teach children to say no to us; that is the sinful nature expressing itself.

We have to teach our child to be good. We have to teach them to be evil. The law itself brings the knowledge of sin. There are people that have no concept of sin until they are commanded to "not do something".......


In fact, the trump card for the reality of TD/Original Sin for me is that “all have sinned”, that is nobody fails to sin!

For every action there is a cause, and the eventual root cause is a selfish motivation, which, by definition, cannot be love.

Doug

I have mentioned this before, you are quoting a references that does not establish your premise.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul is dealing with those at Rome as they were at that time.

Notice the words "they are gone out of the way".

The context is clear. What happened is clear, man was once righteous. They ceased to be righteous. "THEY".... have gone out of the way.

I'll ask you what I've asked others. Who are "they".....?

Adam was forgiven. Eve was forgiven. Seth was born and carried no semblance of sin. He was righteous. Abel was righteous. Cain chose evil.

Flesh is weak. Adam was weak from the beginning. Adam was born peccable. Capable of sin. The proof is in the fact that he sinned. However, Adam sin was not a sin of deception. It was a willful sin to love his wife Eve. He would have been separated from Eve. Adam willing chose Eve.

His love was pure for Eve. Adam's love was sacrificial for Eve. Adam gave his life for Eve.

Many sinners do the same.

All of this is relative. It is important to recognize that our very lives pattern "God's Experience" with us.

It is impossible for a person to actually understand God without our experience.
 

Total Depravity demands damnation.​

Yup, and without even bothering with "total depravity theology", the FIRST SIN is completely sufficient to send one to HELL. That's why a SAVIOR is needed. Fortunately WE HAVE ONE!!!
It is so very obvious and this fact escapes those who believe 100 percent in Total Depravity.

If you are 100 percent Total Depraved, then justice demands your damnation. Total inability demands that you can't respond in any manner to light.

Why is it that Calvinism denies this fact to "carve out" an illogical exemption for themselves?
There's no "Exemption" at all!!! Calvinism invented the "Twilight state" of "Regeneration" as a "work around" for their "Total Depravity" theology.

But the simple FACT is that CONVICTION OF SIN and of Judgement, applied by the Holy Spirit to the lost person can lead to Repentance and callng on God for salvation. No "Systematic Theology" required.
 
Last edited:
We have to teach them to be evil.
No, we don’t! We never have to teach children to disobey! They do it naturally!
The law itself brings the knowledge of sin.
If by knowledge, you mean an awareness of our sinfulness, then yes!

There are people that have no concept of sin until they are commanded to "not do something".......
I think you’re conflating a concept or definition of sin with the difference between right and wrong. The two are related by not necessarily the same thing. Sin is always in relation to God’s law.

Paul did not know that coveting was wrong until he learned that “You shall not covet”, which then made him realize that he was/had been coveting all along, and that he couldn’t stop himself from coveting.
Notice the words "they are gone out of the way".

The context is clear. What happened is clear, man was once righteous. They ceased to be righteous. "THEY".... have gone out of the way.

I'll ask you what I've asked others. Who are "they".....?
Wrong question! The question is what does “gone out of the way” mean?

It means that the whole of mankind (that’s the obvious “they”) is “gone out of the way” of being holy, righteous, and godly in nature. Which is an indication of our being “slaves to sin”. The becoming aware of our sinning is the beginning of our culpability for our actions, but not the beginning of our being sinful.

Flesh is weak. Adam was weak from the beginning. Adam was born peccable. Capable of sin.
Peccable doesn’t mean weak! Vulnerable to sin and weak toward sin are not the same thing.

The proof is in the fact that he sinned.
If Adam hadn’t sinned, he would still be peccable, capable of sinning.
However, Adam sin was not a sin of deception.

True enough!

It was a willful sin to love his wife Eve. He would have been separated from Eve. Adam willing chose Eve.

His love was pure for Eve. Adam's love was sacrificial for Eve. Adam gave his life for Eve.

Many sinners do the same.
This cannot be proven one way or the other, and is thus mere speculation. We certainly cannot make any theological claims based on this argument.

Doug
 
No, we don’t! We never have to teach children to disobey! They do it naturally!

I'm trying to have a detailed conversation about this issue. Blank statements such as this do not help.

So I will say.... sarcastically... to make a point.... So when did you child decided to natural rape another child?

If by knowledge, you mean an awareness of our sinfulness, then yes!

No. It is more than that.

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.

Notice the grammatical construct of Romans 7:8......

Have you not had your own children ask you... "you can do that?".... before. I sure have. More than once.

I'll stop here and wait for you response so we are on the "same page".
 
I'm trying to have a detailed conversation about this issue. Blank statements such as this do not help.
What about this blank statement is detailed in conversation, PY?

So I will say.... sarcastically... to make a point.... So when did you child decided to natural rape another child?
Sarcasm doesn’t help your argument! And the hyperbolic example demonstrates the absurdity of your position. For instance, I simply argue that you don’t need to teach a baby to say no to something they don’t want to do. You make the leap to a horrific situation of rape, as if a year old baby could do such a thing.

The natural “no” to a jar of puréed carrots that a parent is trying to feed them is the same “no” that refuses to yield to the objections of of a girl trying to not have sex with him at a later point in life.

No. It is more than that.

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.

Notice the grammatical construct of Romans 7:8......

Have you not had your own children ask you... "you can do that?".... before. I sure have. More than once.

I'll stop here and wait for you response so we are on the "same page".
Again, the evidence for the sinful nature is demonstrated in our children at the earliest stages of their development and capacities to communicate. Way earlier than the age of the child learning the law and what coveting is that Paul portrays.

But to the point of Rom 7:8, Paul is demonstrating that “sin” is the master of his thoughts and motives. Sin is acting without restraint in him to produce “all kinds of covetousness”.

The purpose of the law is to reveal the reality of sin at work within us. (Rom 3:20, 7:13) It is meant to show that we are incapable of being holy, and demonstrate our need of a savior, thereby pointing us to the cross of Christ! (Gal 3:19-20, 23-25)

The grammatical construction of Rom 7:8 says nothing about “asking” whether we can do or not do something, PY, nor does anything else in Romans 7. It is all about our discovering that what we think we can do is the very thing that we cannot do because we are a slave to sin in our natural, pre-conversion state of being.

Is that detailed enough? 😎


Doug
 
What about this blank statement is detailed in conversation, PY?


Sarcasm doesn’t help your argument! And the hyperbolic example demonstrates the absurdity of your position. For instance, I simply argue that you don’t need to teach a baby to say no to something they don’t want to do. You make the leap to a horrific situation of rape, as if a year old baby could do such a thing.

Which is my point... :)

There are called "extremes"... You have to find the edges and work your way back to find the answer. At the very least, you are recognizing boundaries to evil that isn't natural to the existence of humanity....


Paul appealed to "natural affections" in Romans 1. He also appealed to sinful men being "past feeling". Reprobates. Those who have abandoned any sense of natural consciousness.

Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Paul also appealed to the "senses" of man to discern good and evil.

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

He also spoke of how the "devilish" have seared their own conscience.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Yes. Children can quickly learn to take advantage of their circumstances. That is not an indication of actual being sinful. It is a indication of peccability. Choices. Choices that we do not understand the ramifications of. Innocence.


The natural “no” to a jar of puréed carrots that a parent is trying to feed them is the same “no” that refuses to yield to the objections of of a girl trying to not have sex with him at a later point in life.

I never liked pureed carrots. We don't know what babies want. Human beings are different. We don't want to the same things. Lack of the ability to communicate at the same level.... might be the issue here.

Which is true of our relationship to God. We grow. It takes time. Things become our own. We start owning things. Dealing with our inabilities and powerlessness.

Again, the evidence for the sinful nature is demonstrated in our children at the earliest stages of their development and capacities to communicate. Way earlier than the age of the child learning the law and what coveting is that Paul portrays.

But to the point of Rom 7:8, Paul is demonstrating that “sin” is the master of his thoughts and motives. Sin is acting without restraint in him to produce “all kinds of covetousness”.

I can accept part of that but is not all of it. Cain in anger slew his brother. I don't believe Cain actually knew what his actions meant. Which might be why God forbid Cain from being judged.

I'm reminded of

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,

Which is why we must teach others.

The purpose of the law is to reveal the reality of sin at work within us. (Rom 3:20, 7:13) It is meant to show that we are incapable of being holy, and demonstrate our need of a savior, thereby pointing us to the cross of Christ! (Gal 3:19-20, 23-25)

The grammatical construction of Rom 7:8 says nothing about “asking” whether we can do or not do something, PY, nor does anything else in Romans 7. It is all about our discovering that what we think we can do is the very thing that we cannot do because we are a slave to sin in our natural, pre-conversion state of being.

Is that detailed enough? 😎


Doug

It is.... Thank you! :)

Sin is progressive.

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Pro 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
Pro 6:28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

When you tell a lie, the best thing to do is confess. If you do not confess, you have to tell another lie to cover it up. Over and over. Deeper and deeper.

Once you see something, once you taste something.... it leaves a impression on your brain. A memory. If you see evil, then it leaves an impression upon you. The same is true of good. We emulate what we see from others. We do so because such things impart knowledge to us.

Innocence is often lost through interaction with our environment. God has designed this to teach and challenge us about our choices. The impact of our choices upon others. At every turn we are forced to "own" our choices.
 
Are those “natural affections” to which Paul refers good or bad?

Doug



Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

It is an appeal to the natural care that exists within every human being. When men reject God, God gives them over to evil
 
Back
Top Bottom