Comments on: Total Depravity

By: pgbcgoodrich

pgbcgoodrich — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:14:40 +0000

An additional thought on the comment,” “would contend that the baby NOW is not totally depraved.” It is God’s efficacious grace that draws men to Himself, not a prevenient universal kind of enabling grace to ever person of all time as some embacing Arminian theology might hold to. I find nowhere in Scripture that says that God enables all sinners to come to Jesus. All men are incapable and unwilling to come to Christ unless the efficaious drawing power of God moves. It is through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit who renews the lifeless spirit of sinners, who were chosen by God before the foundation of the world that learn to say “yes” to Christ.
2 Cor 1:21-22
“Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.” (and I might add WHO is to come)
We’re praying for the impartation of life to that “pretty bundle of depravity” and her sisters!

By: Bob McCabe

Bob McCabe — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:52:19 +0000

Though I am certain you know, Allen, that I would not want to abuse my family privileges, I contacted my son Bob before I used Maryn’s picture. If he or his wife would have objected, I would not have used her. However, Bob agrees with my post. You are correct she is a beautiful little girl, both at the time of the picture and now. IMNSHO, she is a pretty bundle of depravity

By: allenmickle

allenmickle — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:42:48 +0000

There is only one person I know who would use his baby grand-daughter as an illustration of total depravity! Dad always said that babies were just cute, unrestrained balls of sin! I suppose he was right! But still… look at her… isnt’ she cute?

Just teasing of course!

By: Bob McCabe

Bob McCabe — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:10:21 +0000

You make an interesting point, Tim, when you say Arminians “would contend that the baby now is not totally depraved.” If anyone has misunderstood me, I am not implying that the baby is not now totally depraved. As you have undoubtedly noticed, I also stated “God imputed to those whom Adam represented, the human race, both Adam’s guilt and his corruption.” To me, it is important to note that fallen humanity is not only held culpable for “inherited depravity,” but also held accountable for Adam’s actual sin. Whatever else I understand from Romans 5:12–21, humanity is condemned for Adam’s sin (vv. 16, 18). Hopefully no one misunderstands my point. Thanks for clarifying this and I believe my subsequent post on total depravity will clarify any potential misunderstandings on this point.

By: Athenaeum

Athenaeum — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:11:27 +0000

Dr McCabe,

Interesting that you brought up Gen 6:5. I thought John Wesley’s comments on this text were surprisingly good. He said, “Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are but Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity” (Works, 6:63). It’s important to note that Arminians believe (at least hypothetically) in original sin (i.e. inherited depravity) but reject the idea that men are culpable for Adam’s sin. Furthermore Arminians do not have a problem with total depravity but what may be termed “permanent” total depravity. Wesley’s rather clearly makes this point, “For allowing that souls are dead in sin by nature, this excuses none, seeing there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God” (Works, 6:512). Returning to the baby illustration you started with, the Arminian would agree that the child was totally depraved, but they would contend that the baby now is not totally depraved. I believe it is important to remember these points when dealing with the Arminian concept of depravity. Helpful post. Look forward to those forthcoming.

Tim Scott