Total
Depravity
Mark
and I endeavored to defend the doctrine of Total Depravity from
Scripture rather than by creeds or confessions. Yet our opponents
sought to redirect this discussion away from Scriptural truth about
man’s inability to save himself, instead focusing on what they
believe to be our inconsistency regarding Reformed confessions. They
attempted to redefine the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity but
did so in opposition to the very creeds they quoted. Presenting our
position as different from that which we actually hold, they painted
a picture of what they thought the doctrine meant using partial
quotes from the LBCF and dictionary definitions.
Murphy
stated, “Micah repudiates the London Confession.”
Yet he only quoted part of the confession, ignoring the portion on
topic of this debate. We agree with this confession, as it explains:
"Works
done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may
be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and
others; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith,
nor are done in a right manner according to the word, nor to a right
end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please
God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God, and yet their
neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God." LBCF,
16.7
Total
Depravity means:
“When
Calvinists speak of man as being totally depraved, they mean that
man’s nature is corrupt, perverse and sinful throughout. The
adjective “total” does not mean that each sinner is as
totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is
possible for him to be.” The Five Points of Calvinism:
Defined, Defended and Documented, David N. Steele, Curtis C.
Thomas, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963
Had
they actually investigated what we believed, much futile discussion
could have been avoided. I post these statements only to reveal our
opponents attempt to color our position. By resorting to arguments
over words, they show no interest in dealing with what Calvinists
actually believe (and thus what Scripture states).
Original
Sin & the Effects of the Fall
Our
opponents disregarded the text of Scripture during this debate and
instead appealed to emotional analogies of drunken drivers. In
response to Psalm 58:3, they responded:
“Psalm
58:3 teaches people were old enough to speak lies. ‘They have
gone astray’ is not synonymous with born astray.”
Note
that they quoted only the second half of Psalm 58:3, spinning it in
such a way as to contradict the first half. Here again is the verse
in question for the reader:
Psalms
58:3 (KJV) - The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go
astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Murphy
acknowledged that “all men sin,” yet refuses to
properly apply this passage to that belief. Since all men sin, all
men are therefore wicked, thus all men are estranged from God from
the womb. The result is that they go astray “as soon as they
are born”.
Our
opponents write:
”We
are spiritually dead in sin not because we are born that way, but
because we choose to live in sin. Psalm 58:3 teaches people were old
enough to speak lies. ‘They have gone astray’ is not
synonymous with born astray.”
Why
do we choose to live in sin? From Scripture it can be
understood that because of our fallen nature we are estranged from
God from the womb. This results in our wickedness from birth. In
their final rebuttal, our opponents again quoted Psalm 58:3 partially
apparently realizing that to quote it fully would mean the
repudiation of their position. They claimed that “we
are sinners because we succumb to temptation and sin”,
but what temptation has a fetus encountered? What temptation have
those who speak lies been tempted with from birth?
Of
Psalm 51:5, Murphy writes:
But
what about Psalms 51:5? Calvinists fail to differentiate between the
thing born and the conditions surrounding the birth. David doesn’t
say: I was born in sin.
Consider
the events surrounding David’s writing of the 51st Psalm.
Scripture states: “A Psalm of David,
when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to
Bathsheba.” Psalm 51 is a psalm of David’s
repentance and he does not speak of other’s sin rather his own.
Psa
51:5 (KJV) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my
mother conceive me.
David
wrote both Psalm 51 and 58. In both Psalms, he is speaking not of the
conditions surrounding the individual’s conception and birth,
but the individual’s condition. Murphy gives not a single
reason why we should accept his view of this verse. Where is the
verse that shows David’s mother as sinning by bringing him to
term? Where is the verse proving that she sinned during his
conception? No, Psalm 51 is the cry of a repentant sinner agonizing
over his depravity and turning to God.
Our
opponents have been quick to point out Scriptures explaining how
children do not inherit guilt for their father’s sins,
and twice likened the consequences of Adam’s sin on the
rest of us as like the death of a child by the negligence of a
drunken driver. One wonders who exactly the drunken driver in their
analogy is, given the fact that it was God who justly cursed Adam for
His sin.
Since
“by the offense of one judgment came
upon all men to condemnation”, then by the offense
of Adam the judgment of God and condemnation unto death came to all
men. Murphy acknowledges that it is God who judges and condemns, yet
fails to draw the necessary conclusion from Romans 5:18. Instead, the
drunk driver analogy was repeated. Do they believe it is the drunk
driver who judges mankind for the one offense of Adam? One is
left to wonder how, if they are not guilty for Adam’s sin, they
can be judged thereby and condemned by a just God? Or is God a
drunken driver, accidentally hitting you instead of Adam?
Consider the inconsistency in their words:
“Adam’s
sin brought physical death on all mankind…”
“According
to God (who judges and condemns), we cannot inherit our father's
sin, nor his guilt, nor his punishment (Ezk 18:20)….”
“I
am not guilty of Adam's sin although I suffer the consequence of his
sin.”
“It
is only because Adam is the father of the race that "the many"
(all) die as a consequence of Adam's sin.”
What
are the consequences of Adam’s sin that they have nothing to do
with the punishment for his sin? The Scriptures, on the other hand,
state it differently: “by the offense
of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation…”,
what men receive as a result Adam’s offense is
judgment unto condemnation by God. Our opponents’ appeal to
verses such as Ezekiel 18:20, which do in fact state that children
will not be punished for their father’s sin. Yet this only
shows that they do not understand that it is because we are born in
Adam that we are born sinners and not because of the sin of our
parents.
What
relevance ‘free-will’ has in this discussion is
questionable. Jesus states that “everyone who sins is a slave
of sin”. While the Pharisees claimed not to be “slaves of
anyone,” Jesus places them all under the same condemnation
explaining that only “if the Son makes
you free, you will be free indeed.” Since all sin,
no man is free, instead we are all slaves to sin and require a Savior
to free him from that state. Paul writes:
2 Timothy
2:24-26
The
Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all,
able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting
those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them
repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may
come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having
been held captive by him to do his will.
Dead
in Sin
As I
stated in the opening round, Romans 8:7-9 adequately addresses the
nature of man apart from the Spirit of God as being “set on
the flesh” and “hostile toward God”. These
do not and cannot subject themselves to the Law of God,
and cannot please God. The question posed to our
opponents was: “given… the difference between
'natural man' and 'spiritual man' is the indwelling Spirit of God
(Rom 8:9), how is it that you believe unbelievers are able to
do the opposite?” Their response was:
“Micah
and Mark teach "the mind set on the flesh" is also
absolute. They see "the hostility," the "cannot
subject" and "cannot please God" as absolute….
Having
said that, the natural man still has free will, so the syndrome is
not necessarily permanent or irreversible…”
This is
no answer, their response seems only to be ‘cannot cannot
mean cannot’! Yet, nothing in the text of Romans 8 supports
this condition as being “not necessarily permanent.”
Romans 8:7-8 instead declares that the person with the mind set on
the flesh cannot obey God and are unable to
please Him. The difference between the person with the mind set on
the flesh and the person with the mind set on the Spirit is the
indwelling Spirit of God. Romans 8 thus proves what we are saying,
that apart from the indwelling Spirit of God men cannot obey God
nor please Him. Our opponents’ conclusion therefore is
without substantiation.
“Some
natural men can be mildly interested in the spiritual or even attend
church regularly,” Murphy writes. Calvinism in no way states
otherwise, but that natural man cannot obey God and is unable to
please Him. Although natural man may seek solace in churches and
monasteries, he does so out of sinful motives. As in Christ’s
day, the Pharisees were leaders in the church yet Christ called them
‘children of… the devil.’
John 8:47
“He
who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not
hear them, because you are not of God.”
Note
the inability implied: “…you
cannot hear my word…” and “He
who is of God hears the words of God”. This is similar
to John 10 wherein Jesus explains that the Pharisees do not believe
because they are not His sheep, rather than the other way around.
That
natural man can do that which appears to be good in no way diminishes
the fact that he is unable to please God or perfectly obey His Law.
As we stated, God commanding something does not imply ability to
fulfill the command. God commanded Israel to obey the Law fully, and
yet no one except Christ was able to do that. Therefore, it is only
by faith in Christ that the perfect obedience to God’s Law is
imputed to the believer.
Augustine
fought Pelagius over these very issues. The end result of that debate
was the excommunication of Pelagius, and the naming of the particular
heresy after him. That debate took place well over 1600 years ago,
but the heresy then condemned continues. Our opponents are but recent
followers of the same line of thinking and are likewise condemned.
This debate has clearly exposed the anthropocentric nature of their
belief system. Denying original sin, they affirm that infants are
not“estranged from the womb” and do not
“come forth speaking lies” but are all born
perfectly sinless. If what they believe is true, infants do not need
a Savior, especially not a Savior who bore in His own flesh the sin
of His people! By denying Total Depravity they claim unregenerate man
can cooperate with God. They thus add works to grace, cheapening that
work of Christ and denying the imputation of righteousness claiming
that all men have that which Satan tempted Eve with… the
ability to what only God can do.
Soli
Deo Gloria
Micah
Burke
**********
Printer friendly version of this article
Steve's final paper
Kieran's first paper
Micah's first paper
