total depravity debate

Total Depravity DebateMMoosseess FFlloorreess && NNiicckk NNoorreellllii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Total Depravity?....................................................... 3
Affirmative 1-1: Moses Flores..................................................................................... 4
Affirmative 1-2: Moses Flores.................................................................................... 12
Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Total Depravity?
Debating T.U.L.I.P. Total Depravity – Moses Flores – Affirmative 1-1
Affirmative 1-1: Moses Flores
Opening Statement
What does the Bible teach about the nature of humanity since the fall of man? Some teach that man has not been affected by the fall at all. Still others teach that man has become sick unto death, but is still able to do spiritually good things like repent and have faith of their own “free-will”. However, the Reformed, or Calvinistic, tradition alone stands opposed to both of those concepts. The Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity teaches that man is completely dead in trespasses and sins. This is because we believe the Bible teaches that the effects of sin run through the whole being of the sinner. The sinner, therefore, is thoroughly or radically corrupted by sin. My purpose is to share what the Scriptures teach concerning the depravity, or inability of man.
There are two main points that I wish to prove through the Scriptures. First, that our corruption is such that our nature is now defined by sin (until regeneration). Secondly, that this nature makes us unable to savingly respond to the Gospel call and believe in Christ for salvation.
Genesis 3 reveals one the most tragic events in all of human history: the fall of man. In the Garden of Eden, man enjoyed perfect fellowship with God. But Adam’s bliss did not last very long, for He soon sinned against God’s only commandment: “thou shall not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). The moment Adam transgressed God’s law, Adam underwent radical changes in his entire being. In particular, his spirit died, for his fellowship with God was broken. By “death” I mean alienation from the life of God. This is the first result of the fall. This alienation from God is so total in its effect that it has plunged Adam into a state of ruin so that he could not find his way back to God without the Holy Spirit. His spiritual death ultimately manifested itself in his physical death as well. But Adam did not act for himself, for the Scriptures teach in Romans 5:12-19 that Adam’s sin plunged all his progeny into death and corruption with him. Thus, we have become depraved.
“Depravity” is defined as the state of being marked by corruption or evil. What Calvinism means by Total Depravity is 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. Instead, the word ‘total’ is used to indicate that the whole of man’s being has been affected by sin. This doctrine essentially teaches that all of man has been touched by sin – no part of man’s being has escaped the corruption of sin. Our minds, our heart, our emotions, our wills – everything has been altered, changed, and damaged by sin. The effect of sin is total.
There are three specific areas that I would like to deal with in regards to the fall and
the degree that sin has affected us all. Romans 3:10-12, depicts these general areas that sin has affected: righteousness, intellect and will.
In regards to righteousness, the Scripture says “There is no one righteous, no not one.” Righteousness, as it is used here, is defined in relation to God. Certainly, when we compare ourselves amongst ourselves, we will always be able to say that some people act “more righteously” than others. But this is not so when God is the standard of righteousness, as is the case when it comes to needing righteousness before God. We forget that God is the judge and demands perfect righteousness. Psalm 130:3 says, “if you, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” The Hebrew word for “mark” means “to regard, to look upon narrowly, to take heed to.” Surely, it is easy to see, that compared to God’s ultimate standard of Law, we all “fall short of the glory of God” (cf. Romans 3:23).
But not only are we affected in our righteousness, but our intellect is affected as well. This is seen in the phrase “no one understands.” I am not speaking in terms of secular or natural things like sciences. The Bible does not disagree that man has excelled in many areas like philosophy, science, technology, etc… What I am denying is that man has no understanding in spiritual things. I Corinthians 2:14 says, that the “natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God …because they are spiritually discerned.” As a sinner, the unregenerate man rejects the things of the Spirit of God because he does not understand them nor does he desire them. He accepts only the things of the world. Perhaps this is clearly seen in the pagan religions of the world. True knowledge of God is only revealed in God’s word, but there is a notion that we can understand spiritual things on our own. So mankind has engaged in creating their own gods that we know as idols.
Finally, and most importantly in regards to this doctrine of Total Depravity, our very
wills have been corrupted by the effects of sin: “there is no one who seeks God.” The meaning is that not only are we incapable of coming to God because of our sin and our lack of righteousness, as well as our incapacity to understand God, the sinner does not even want to come to God. Perhaps someone might object to this and say, “Well that can’t be right! People are seeking God everyday and in every way. That is why people create so many religions. They are simply on the wrong path, but they share the common goal of getting to God.” This may sound pretty good, but according to Romans 1, people have rejected the God of the Bible as the true God and have created for themselves gods of their own devising. It is sad to say, but even within the Church, there are people who are not seeking God, but rather a god of their own making. They are seeking a god who is not completely sovereign in salvation, or a god who will not bring them into judgment for their sins, or a god who will only give them great financial gain, etc… In short, they seek the blessings of God without God. They are following an idol. The Scriptures speak: “There are none that seek God!!!” The term “none” is universal is quantity toward the unregenerate.
I want to focus on this inability of man to seek God and to come to Christ in and of
himself for this is the very heart of the doctrine of Total Depravity, which has even led some to refer to the doctrine as Total Inability. First, let me be clear about what the doctrine is saying: Essentially, it is saying that fallen man does not possess the will to be
saved. Thus, the Arminian view of salvation through the “free-will” of man is wholly rejected. Allow me to expound the words of the Lord Jesus in John 6:44.
In context, there is a crowd of followers who are seeking Jesus because He had
previously fed a crowd of five thousand. As Jesus begins to tell them that He is the true bread from Heaven, the Jews begin to grumble amongst themselves to which Jesus tells them, “stop grumbling among yourselves…no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” The Greek phrase οδες
δναται (translated “no one is able”, pres. tense verb) stresses the universal inability of man to “come to Christ.” In the context of this entire discussion (v24-69), the phrase “come to Me” is meant to say “believe in Me” (cf v36, 40, 47; also synonymous with “eat” and “drink” (v54-56). Thus, what Jesus is saying is that no one is able to believe in Him apart from a special act of the Father (which will be dealt within the 4th debate topic of Irresistable [sic] Grace). Why does man not have the ability? Because, as has been shown earlier, mankind has become so corrupt in their sin that our very wills are not “free” from its effects. Rather they are enslaved to sin. Jesus elsewhere says that the one who sins is a “slave to sin” (cf. John 8:34).
Now, at this point, one might with [sic] to say that God “draws” all men unto
Himself. However this cannot be the case for the Scriptures say that the one who is “drawn” by the Father is also raised up at the last day. Operating from the supposition that universal salvation is not taught in the Bible, one may preclude the notion that all men are “drawn” in this sense by the Father, for not all will be “raised up on the last day”.
As Jesus finishes explaining that one must “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood” –
again, this is to say “believe in Him” – the Bible says that many of his disciples said, “this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Jesus even asks His own twelve, “Does this offend you?” The Bible goes on to say that Jesus asked this knowing who would not believe in Him and even the one who would betray Him in. Verse 65 shows that Jesus reiterates His statement about the inability of man to believe in Christ in light of this knowledge of them who would never believe: “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
The words of Christ clearly teach the inability of fallen and sinful man to do anything
at all to will salvation in and of themselves. Lest one be led to believe this is an isolated text of Scripture, the Apostle Paul also clearly taught the same inability of the unregenerate man. In Romans 8:7-8, the apostle says, “For the carnal mind is enmity toward God, for it is neither subject to the law of God nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” The same Greek verb (δναται) is used twice here to describe the inability of man, namely that the carnal man cannot obey the law of God nor can he please God. Now, I would ask the question here: Is true saving faith and genuine repentance unto salvation pleasing to God? The answer should be obvious that those things are indeed the most pleasing to God. If it is true, then, that those things are pleasing to God, and if it’s true that the unregenerate man cannot please God, then does it not follow that the unregenerate man cannot exercise saving faith and genuine repentance
unto salvation, for those things are pleasing to God? This would seem to be the case if we remain consistent with the Scriptures.
Paul has further stated, with regards to the spiritual inability of man to comprehend
the things of God apart from the Spirit, that “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can (δναται) he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
The prophet Jeremiah spoke of the nature of the sinful people of Israel (which is in all
humanity) in Jeremiah 13:23 when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil?” The clear meaning is that just as the nature of the color of skin and the spots of the leopard are not changed at will (because it is the defining nature of those categories), so neither can those who are accustomed to do evil change at their own will. Job Himself asked, “what is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous? If God puts no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water!” Sin is in our very nature. Sin effects and directs our very wills.
In conclusion, Calvinist author and theologian, A.W. Pink sums up:
“It is of utmost importance that people should clearly understand and be made thoroughly aware of their spiritual impotence, for thus alone is the foundation laid for bringing them to see and feel their imperative need of divine grace for salvation. So long as sinners think they have it in their own power to deliver themselves from their death in trespasses and sins, they will never come to Christ that they might have life…So long as people imagine they labor under no insuperable inability to comply with the call of the gospel, they never will be conscious of their entire dependence on Him alone who is able to work in them ‘all the good pleasure of His goodness, and the work of faith with power’ (2 Thess. 1:11). So long as the creature is puffed up with a sense of his own ability to respond to God’s requirements, he will never become a suppliant at the footstool of divine mercy.” (Our Accountability to God, pg. 277-78)
In Christ’s name. Amen.
Debating T.U.L.I.P. Total Depravity – Nick Norelli – Negative 1-1
Negative 1-1: Nick Norelli
Opening Statement
I would like to begin by thanking Moses for this opportunity to debate the five points of Calvinism. I consider this to be a very important and often misunderstood system of theology. Although I stand opposed to Calvinism, I am sure that there is much to be learned from Calvinists, even if we cannot reach an agreement in the area of soteriology. I will admit that Calvinism as a system is masterful. It is both logical and consistent within itself, as well as down-right appealing. But I have to ask myself if it is scriptural. Is this the system of theology that the Bible teaches from cover to cover? I can say with all sincerity that I don’t believe that it is. In making this statement I don’t want to be pigeonholed into saying that Arminianism is therefore the only viable alternative because I believe to do so is to create a false dilemma. There may be other options that have not been considered.
The heart of the argument on Total Depravity, I believe is in man’s ability to choose.
Does sin so wholly ruin a man that he is unable to choose what is right or good when presented with the option to do so? The Calvinist will say, yes, man is so corrupted by sin that he is unable to choose what is right or good therefore man must be regenerated prior to exercising faith in God and repenting of his sins. While I certainly agree that sin ruins a man, I do not believe that it annihilates the man or his faculty of choice. I also don’t believe that man is so free that he can create his own choices, constantly choose that which is good, and thus merit his own salvation (Pelagianism). Nor do I believe that a man initiates the salvation process of his own will before being drawn by the Father, presented with the Gospel, and convicted by the Holy Spirit (Semi-Pelagianism).
Allow me to state what I believe the Bible teaches us about the nature of man before salvation. Man is born with a sin nature which the Hebrews throughout history have referred to as “The Evil Inclination” (Heb. Yetzer Hara - ). Note that this is not personal sin, but rather the proclivity to sin. Scripture affirms that “…the imagination (Heb. yetzer - ) of man's heart is evil (Heb. ra - ) from his youth…” (Genesis 8:21), and “As it is written, There is “none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). I believe that man prior to the new birth is “dead in his trespasses and sin” and “by nature a child of wrath” (Ephesians 2:1, 3). But even in this state of spiritual death, man has the power to make choices.
At this point it is needful to ask exactly what effect sin has on people, and to what
extent this limits us in regards to responding to God. Isaiah 59:2 tells us in the plainest language that sin separates from God. This is obvious from Adam and Eve’s removal from the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:23-24) as well as Lucifer’s expulsion from heaven (Ezekiel 28:16). The wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23). We know that the death Adam died on the day that he sinned was a spiritual death because scripture records his living to the age of 930 (Genesis 5:3). By spiritual death it is meant that he was cut off from God and the eternal life which is enjoyed in God. His actual spirit did not die
because spirits are by nature everlasting. They are directly generated from the breath of God (Job 33:4) who is by very nature eternal (Psalm 90:2).
In man’s state of sin (separation), he will not naturally seek after God (Romans 3:11).
His works although appearing righteous (i.e. donating to charities, feeding the poor, volunteering at hospitals, etc…) are anything but. The prophet Isaiah declared that “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6, NIV ). What was meant by this comment? Simply stated, in Israel’s state of sin they were apart from the righteousness and holiness of God, which for all intents and purposes, made their self-righteousness appear as defiled menstrual cloths. Thus in applying this passage to ourselves we can see that everything we do outside of God is tainted with sin. There is one perfect standard of righteousness which is God, and when compared to Him, we fall short every time (Romans 3:23).
Jesus speaking to the disciples said, “Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No
branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (John 15:3-4, NIV ) The teaching then is clear… In and of ourselves we cannot bring forth good fruit, the reason being that our roots are corrupted with sin. Therefore, we need to be born again and receive a new spiritual root, and as the apostle Paul stated, “…if the root is holy then so are the branches” (Romans 11:16).
Although I am not an Arminian I will set forth the Arminian position of the depravity
of man. Contrary to popular belief, Arminians are not Pelagians. They do not hold that a man is so free so that he has the ability to attain his salvation through righteous works of his own, nor do they hold to the Semi-Pelagian heresy that man initiates his own salvation apart from the Grace of God. Jacobus Arminius stated,
“But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.”1
In 1610 the students of Arminius echoed his words in the third article of the
Remonstrance.
1 Arminius, Jacobus. The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986), 1:227-28.
“Man in his fallen state is unable to accomplish any thing really and truly good, and therefore also unable to attain to saving faith, unless he be regenerated and renewed by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit”2
Man, even in his fallen state is still said to have been created in the image of God
(Genesis 9:6). Does this somehow suggest that God has a sin nature? God forbid! What this tells us is that even with a sin nature, we are still rational, intelligent beings and as such we are able to make intelligent decisions when presented with specific options. This is undeniable in light of the scriptural record.
The Bible declares that there is a time “before the child shall know to refuse the evil
and choose (Heb. v’vachor - ) the good…” (Isaiah 7:16). The clear phrasing shows that man has a choice between good and evil. We see repeatedly in scripture that God presents fallen man with choices. In Deuteronomy 30:19 He sets before the children of Israel life and death, and then admonishes them to “therefore choose (Heb. uvacharta - ”.life ( Yahweh spoke through Joshua saying, “…choose you (Heb. bacharu - this day whom you will serve…” Each of these examples uses a derivative of the ( root verb “bachâr” ( ) which the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says, “…is used to express that choosing which has ultimate and eternal significance.”3
While Elijah the Tishbite stood atop Mt. Caramel, he asked the question of how long
the people would halt between two opinions, and then exhorted them to serve Yahweh if He was God or Baal is he was (1Kings 18:21). The plain statement is that the people had a choice between the two. Why suggest that which was impossible? The theme which runs throughout is not that man in and of himself, is able to create his own options and then perform his own will, but rather that man has the ability to choose between the options which God has set before him.
Following this train of thought into the New Testament, we see the theme remains the
same. God in his Grace presents men with options, and men are enabled by God’s Grace to choose that which is good. Does this necessitate regeneration prior to faith and repentance? I don’t see how that it could, for God “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Certainly God does not command that which He knows man has no ability to perform. And if the unregenerate man was unable to respond to the Grace of God, believe and repent, then God could not truly hold them guilty for their sin. If God says that man should do something, then it follows that they can do it. Meaning that the ability is there, although not in and of themselves, but rather in response to God’s Grace.
The book of Romans presents us with this very picture in the 10th chapter saying,
“For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And
2 Phillip Schaff. The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, §66 The Remonstrance (E-Sword Bible Software) 3 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 100.
how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:13-17, NIV)
It is shown that a man cannot call on Christ until he has believed in him, and he
cannot even believe until he has heard the gospel. The persistent message of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the apostles were one of faith and repentance. John the Baptist told men to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand” (Matthew 3:2), while Jesus told the people of Galilee to “repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). The 12 were sent out and “preached that men should repent” (Mark 6:12) and Peter said “repent and be converted” (Acts 3:19) as well as “whoever believes in him [Jesus] shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). The apostle Paul testified “both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21), telling us also that “repentance from dead works and faith towards God” are the “elementary teachings” of the Christian faith (Hebrews 6:1).
In an explanatory note on John 6:44, John Wesley noted,
“…No man can believe in Christ, unless God give him power: he draws us first, by good desires. Not by compulsion, not by laying the will under any necessity; but by the strong and sweet, yet still resistible, motions of his heavenly grace.”4 So the conclusion is that God commands men to do that which they are able to do in
accordance with his Grace. We see that in Acts 13:48 as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. This is a perfect example of man responding to God’s Grace in the act of believing. Another such example is Romans 2:4 which tells us that the goodness of God leads to repentance. The Grace of God which was ultimately communicated in the sacrifice of his only begotten Son was said to have been done in order to give repentance to Israel (Acts 5:31). In every instance, God’s Grace precedes man’s belief and repentance, but it is man who repents and believes nonetheless. These things are not done post-regeneration, but rather pre-regeneration. Neither are they done pre-Grace but rather post-Grace, “For the Grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men!” (Titus 2:11)

4 John Wesley. John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, John 6:44 (E-Sword Bible Software).
First Rebuttal
Nick, thank you for the response. I was very pleased that there were no ad hominem attacks and I very much appreciated you sticking to the issue at hand. There are a few things that I would like to respond back to.
First, concerning your understanding of Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and
Augustinianism (or Calvinism). Concerning your understanding of Pelagianism, you said, that “you don’t believe that man is so free that he can create his own choices, constantly choose that which is good, and thus merit his own salvation (Pelagianism). Suprisingly [sic], you say that your position is not that of the Pelagians, yet one of your clear statements posits you clearly siding with Pelagius against Augustine and condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418. Allow me to explain.
The Pelagius controversy begins with Augustine’s often used phrase, “Lord Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.
1” Augustine’s clear meaning, as understood by theologians after him, was that it was well within the right of God to command whatsoever He pleased, yet the very power to obey what God commanded must also come from God himself. For Pelagius, this idea that “the power to obey the commandment of God must come from the same source2” was an error. In fact, for Pelagius, he believed that “God does not command that which He knows man has no ability to perform” (your words). On this point, you stand clearly with Pelagius on a fundamental level.
However, you also mention Semi-Pelagianism as a system in which “man initiates the
salvation process of his own will before being drawn by the Father, presented with the Gospel, and convicted by the Holy Spirit.” Again, I would submit to you that this is not, technically speaking, the Semi-Pelagian view. The semi-Pelagian view, more correctly stated, is the in-between ground concerning the total inability of man to do anything toward regeneration and conversion apart from the Grace of God alone (Augustinianism) and the Pelagian view that Grace is not necessary for man possesses the inherent ability to will to do the commandments of God, even unto salvation. The Semi-Pelagian position is actually found within modern Roman Catholicism (although it was condemned as well in the Council of Orange, A.D. 529 ?) which is essentially summed up in what is called “prevenient grace” (held by John Wesley as well). “Prevenient grace” is a “grace that goes before”. Essentially the teaching says that God’s gives all men this “grace” so that when they hear the Gospel, this grace comes to them and men are “free” to choose either to accept or reject the Gospel; either to believe in Christ or not. This you make clear that you hold to as well when you say, “If God says that man should do something, then it follows that they can do it. Meaning that the ability is there,
1 Schaff, Phillip, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, pg. 790 2 Ibid. pg. 791
although not in and of themselves, but rather in response to God’s grace” (Your words, Italics mine). This same concept is found with “evangelical Arminianism” as well as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s witnesses and various other Christian sects and cults.
Certainly, I think the history and theology of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism
could use some further research and study.
Secondly, I would like to correct a general misunderstanding of the non-Calvinist position against the doctrine of Total Depravity. It is commonly believed by non- Calvinist that the Calvinist position is that men have “no choice” whatsoever. Thus, the appeal to many texts of Scripture that show choices being made. However, this appeal to Scripture turns out to be nothing more than a straw man since that is not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is not that man “has no choices” or “makes no choices.” Rather, it is specifically stated that regarding belief in Christ, “man is not able” to do this.
As Christ stated, “no man is able to come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws
him” (John 6:44). As Paul put is ever so clearly, “the carnal mind is enmity toward God for it is neither subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. Therefore, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7,8). Thus, men do have a choice for their options are real when the Gospel is presented to them, however, the sinful heart of man cannot and will not choose Christ on its own for its very nature is against God!
The issue is not does man have a choice, but rather if sin influences how we make
choices. To this we must ask several questions like: what does it mean to be a sinner? Is it because of actions in a given moment or is it a nature we have inherited from Adam? If we are sinners by nature, then does it not follow that we act according to our nature? If this is so, then how can we sinners possess the ability to choose righteously if our very hearts are corrupted and slaves of sin (cf. Romans 6, John 8:34)?
In the brief amount of space that I have left, I would like to respond back to several
passages of Scripture you offered concerning the choices of men. These will be brief as space is limited.
First you quote Isaiah 7:16 as proof that “man has a choice between good and evil.”
However, the context of the verse certainly does not allow for this general anthropological statement for the verse is clearly about the “Christ-child” mentioned in verse 14 as the one born to the Virgin. Thus, the logical jump from the Christ-child to all of humanity is unwarranted from the text, unless you are willing to be consistent with your statement and, thus, hold that all men who have a choice between good and evil are this same “Christ-child.”
Secondly, concerning Joshua 24:15 which you quote as “choose you this day whom
you will serve…” and as proof that men are able to make choices of “eternal significance.” Again, however, context is the difference. You will note that here Joshua is exhorting Israel to be faithful to God. However, in verse 15 he tells them, because of
their idolatrous tendencies, that “if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell…” Joshua is not offering them a choice here between God and the other gods, but between the gods that Abraham left behind, perhaps even those of Egypt, and the gods of the Amorites, or their new land. Notably, the people make a case that it should be “far from them to forsake the LORD.” However, Joshua responds to them in verse 19, “You cannot serve the LORD, for He is a holy God…(NKJV)” (ESV, NIV, “you are not able to serve”; NASB “you will not be able”). Your assertion for a “free” choice between God and other gods stand clearly refuted here.
Third, concerning I King 18:21 which says, “And Elijah came to all the people, and
said, ‘How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” You assert that from this text, it is clearly posited that people had a choice between the two. No disagreement here. However, who will be the ones that ultimately chose? Why those who were set apart, and not for anything in them, but only by grace. The Scriptures concur to this, not once but twice! In I Kings 19:18 where it is written, “Yet I have reserved for myself seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal”. The apostle Paul uses this same Scripture to prove the doctrine of individual election according to the grace of God in Romans 11:2-5: “…Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel saying, ‘LORD, they have killed your prophets and town down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.’? But what does the divine response say to him? ‘I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
Space permits me to respond to the assertions made from Acts 13:48 or Romans 2:4.
However, I think this exchange will help clear the waters a bit, as well as offer refutation for the belief that man has the ability to choose righteousness, particularly, that man has the ability to serve God while in a depraved state. I should note that John 6:44, Romans 8:7-8, Jeremiah 13:23, and I Corinthians 2:12-14 all remain unrefuted and clear that the natural man, the carnal man, the unregenerate man, posses no ability to believe in Christ apart from a special act of the Father that is not given to all men.
First Counter Rebuttal Moses, I would like to thank you for your response and apologize for taking so long
to respond. My schedule is very hectic these days. I also wanted to apologize for the lack of ad hominem argumentation. I will try to include some in this paper (just kidding). And lastly, I would like to apologize for a misunderstanding on my part. I was under the impression that I was to make an opening statement and not actually a rebuttal to your opening statement. It was for this reason that I didn’t deal with specific things that you stated. Due to the limited space, I want to get right into responding to some of the points you raised in your rebuttal.
• Concerning my understanding of Pelagianism.
I believe that it was correctly stated in the one sentence definition that I gave it. Phillip Schaff said, “…Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary.”1
• Concerning my agreement with Pelagius on a fundamental level.
You charge me with agreeing with Pelagius on a fundamental level thus implying that my view is somehow Pelagian. Allow me to quote you from an earlier email in an attempt to give a counter-example of this type of reasoning.
“The ‘moderate Calvinist’. This is actually a term coined by Geisler to sort of ‘ride the fence’. He doesn't want to say he's an Arminian but he doesn't want to say that he's a Calvinist completely either. […] a "moderate Calvinist" is one who accepts the first four points of Arminianism […] along with the 5th point of Calvinism which is the Perseverance of the saints.”2 On the point of perseverance of the saints, you stand clearly with Norman Geisler and
other moderate Calvinists on a fundamental level, yet you obviously reject “moderate Calvinism” as a whole, claiming that the first four points of it are Arminian. I would also point out that upon reading my paper and Pelagius’ position there is no actual agreement, fundamental or otherwise. It was a mere misperception on your part.
1 Phillip Schaff. History of the Christian Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2006), 3:786. 2 Subject: Re: Debate Center, Date: 4/16/2006 10:23:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, From: PRCHDAWORD, To: Prophetnick77.
If you continue on in Schaff’s writing, he quotes Pelagius in a letter to Demetrias as saying, “As often as I have to speak concerning moral improvement and the leading of a holy life, I am accustomed first to set forth the power and quality of human nature…” 3
I am not accustomed to set forth any such power and quality. I believe that this was evident from statements that I made such as: “In and of ourselves we cannot bring forth good fruit…”
As well as: “The theme which runs throughout is not that man in and of himself, is
able to create his own options and then perform his own will, but rather that man has the ability to choose between the options which God has set before him.”
And: “If God says that man should do something, then it follows that they can do it.
Meaning that the ability is there, although not in and of themselves, but rather in response to God’s Grace.”
As can be seen, my position is clearly in opposition to Pelagianism thus you were
arguing against a position I do not hold, hence a straw man.
• Concerning my understanding of Semi-Pelagianism
This I believe was an accurate one sentence definition as well. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as well as the Encyclopaedia Britannica agrees with my abbreviated definition.
“[Semi-Pelagianism], while not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.” 4
“But against Augustine they taught that the innate corruption of man was not so great that the initiative toward Christian commitment was beyond the power of man’s native will… According to this view, man by his unaided will could desire to accept the gospel of salvation…”5
• Concerning your attempt to equate Semi-Pelagianism with Prevenient Grace.
Semi-Pelagianism clearly places man in the role of initiator in terms of his salvation while Prevenient Grace as you concisely and accurately stated is a “grace that goes before.” The order then is reversed, thus eliminating the possibility of them being the
3 Schaff, 3:791. 4 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 1258. 5 “Semi-Pelagianism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia, (1981 ed.), IX: 50.
same doctrine. I would also point out that, neither the Wesleyan, Arminian, or Catholic positions are Semi-Pelagianism. This is clear from the following statements.
“Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing [prevenient] grace…”6 “The Synod furthermore declares, that, in adults, the beginning of the said Justitication is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from his vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called […] while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly inactive while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in his sight.”7 “The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.” 8
Thus you once again have created a straw man in attributing a view (Semi-Pelagianism) to groups that do not hold it. • Concerning the “guilt by association fallacy”
You claimed that the same concept (prevenient grace which you have misrepresented as Semi-Pelagianism) is found within “evangelical Arminianism” as well as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s witnesses and various other Christian sects and cults.” This seems nothing more than an attempt to attribute guilt by association. Even if there were agreement between Christian denominations and cult groups such as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses on a certain teaching, it does not follow that the teaching is false or should be avoided and/or rejected. This type of argument serves only to prejudice an audience. • Concerning the charge of me arguing against a straw man
6 The Works of John Wesley, ed. T. Jackson, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, rpt. 1979), 6:509; cf. The Works of Jacobus Arminius, 1:227-28 & Remonstrance Article III. 7 The Cannons of the Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Ch. V (E-Sword Bible Software); cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Image Book-Doubleday, 1995), 538 [par. 1996]. 8 John Wesley. The Twenty-five Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, ed. Dennis Bratcher, Article 8 – Of Free Will <http://www.crivoice.org/creed25.html>
I don’t believe that I once stated in my opening that Calvinists believed that man had “no choice whatsoever.” In fact, I believe I stated the Calvinistic position exactly as it is when I said, “The Calvinist will say, yes, man is so corrupted by sin that he is unable to choose what is right or good therefore man must be regenerated prior to exercising faith in God and repenting of his sins.”9 I clearly specified the Calvinist thinking of man’s inability to exercise belief in Christ and repentance.
• Concerning your treatment of the scriptures about choice
I fully affirm that Isaiah 7:16 is a Messianic reference, but this is hardly applicable to the Messiah alone. First we must realize that the nature of humanity which God the Son added to the nature of deity, was no different than our human nature. The Messiah was fully human as we are, while at the same time being fully God, which we are not. But the passage in question speaks of a time of innocence and ignorance in the life of a child before he has the knowledge to choose between good and evil. While being a Messianic reference, this is not an exclusive trait of the Messiah alone. Nothing in the text would suggest that it was and in fact we would have to take a leap in logic to assert such. I would point out that Deuteronomy 1:39 speaks of a generation of children who had no knowledge of good and evil. This passage is directly comparable to the Isaiah passage and has no reference whatsoever to the Messiah.
Your treatment of Joshua 24:15 only goes to further prove the point that man has a
choice to serve Yahweh or idols. As the assembly stands before God Joshua admonishes them to serve Yahweh (vs. 14). Then he tells them that if it seems evil to them to serve Yahweh then choose who they will serve (vs. 15). The choice between Yahweh and idols is clear for they cannot choose which idols to serve without first having chosen to leave Yahweh. And Joshua concludes the verse by making his choice clear and emphatic, stating, “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!” To further the point, the very next verse shows that the people saw the choice as one between Yahweh and idols when they said, “God forbid that we should forsake the LORD to serve other idols” (vs. 16). And Joshua’s comments in vs. 18 was not meant in the respect that they could not serve Yahweh at all, but rather they could not serve Yahweh “by [their] own resolution only, and without the assistance of divine grace, without solid and serious conversion from all idols, and without true repentance and faith” (J. H. Michaelis).10 And to solidify the real and present choice of the people, “Joshua said, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen (Heb. “bechartem” ) you the LORD, to serve Him.- -And they said: 'We are witnesses'” (vs. 22, JPS).
9 Compare to your statement, “Secondly, that this nature makes us unable to savingly respond to the Gospel call and believe in Christ for salvation.” 10 C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 2:169.
I have already run over the specified space, (much of this being the format I chose, i.e. spacing between paragraphs and headings with bullets) but I feel it necessary to respond to one last thing.
You said, “I think this exchange will help clear the waters a bit, as well as offer refutation for the belief that man has the ability to choose righteousness, particularly, that man has the ability to serve God while in a depraved state.”
This is not now nor has ever been my position since we entered into this topic of debate, thus you have once again only refuted a straw man. I will address the scriptures that you presented in the next rebuttal, Lord willing.

Cross Examination Session
The following is a cross-examination session between Moses Flores and Nick Norelli concerning the doctrine of Total Depravity. Each of the participants met in a private chat room and were given equal amounts of time to exchange questions and answers. Moses: Alrighty....first things first. Nick, I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what your position is concerning how far sin has impacted humanity, particularly in regards to one's will. Could you help me understand your position in regards to "free will"? Nick: Sure thing... My position regarding free will is simply this... Man is free in regards to the choices he makes, meaning that every option which is set before him, man has the freedom to choose that which he will... I believe that sin has ruined man to the point that apart from the grace of God they will never choose that which is good... Sin has so affected the person that he will naturally unaided by God's grace continue in sin... Not of necessity, but rather of free choice... But once empowered by the grace of God they may choose the good as opposed to the evil... This is what I referred to as pre- regeneration/post-grace in my original paper. Moses: Doesn't that sound a bit inconsistent in that you allow for freedom to [choose] that which he will, yet you also say that man cannot choose good apart from grace? Nick: It is not that they "can't" but rather they "won't" -- That is why I stated that man will continue in sin "not of necessity but rather of free choice" -- The reason I say this is because if they of necessity sin and have no ability to do anything other than sin, then God cannot hold them accountable for their sin... But if they of their own free will choose that which is evil then God is absolutely just to condemn them for their sin... At this point I would have to insert that the grace is present, but can be rejected (although I was hoping to save this for the "I" portion of the debate). Moses: Could you turn to John 6:44 and, for the record, state the verse... Nick: Sure... Any particular translation? MOSES: just what you have most immediately Nick: John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day (KJV) MOSES: on the basis of this text, would you agree that an inability is ascribed to man here by the Lord Jesus? Nick: Yes... I would agree that in and of himself, man is unable to come to Jesus.
MOSES: what is the condition in which men may "come to Christ" which is to say "believe in" Christ? Nick: If I understand the question correctly, the condition would be being drawn by the Father. MOSES: Do you believe that all men are drawn by the Father in this way so as to "enable" them to believe in Christ? Nick: I believe that the context of John 6:44 reveals that believers are specifically being referred to... So I would not include all men in John 6:44... I just [want] to add that if you were to ask that about the Bible in general, then I would say that yes, I believe that the prevenient grace of God enables all men to come to the Father... But the text in question specifically speaks of believers as is evident from vs. 37, 39, etc… MOSES: ok....final questions...Concerning these statements of yours: "Certainly God does not command that which He knows man has no ability to perform," and "If God says that a man should do something, then it follows that they can do it." Is it your position, from these statements, that whatever God commands man possesses the ability to do? Nick: It is my position that God through his grace enables man to do these things... They do not possess the ability in and of themselves...
Cross Examination Session
The following is a cross-examination session between Moses Flores and Nick Norelli concerning the doctrine of Total Depravity. Each of the participants met in a private chat room and were given equal amounts of time to exchange questions and answers. Nick: Question #1 - Is your belief that a man is so ruined by sin that he is completely unable to recognize anything which would resemble the light of God? MOSES: No. Obviously Romans 1 clearly states that even the Natural revelation of God still resounds in the mind and heart of man. Nick: Question #2 - How does God remain absolutely just in punishing men for that which they have no ability to refrain from? MOSES: quite simply, first there is refuting the presupposition that "responsibility is based on ability". I don't believe this presupposition to be true at all. I believe that our responsibility to God is based on our obligation to God as our Creator. Thus, God's justice has never been in jeopardy in condemning men who fell in Adam. I believe Romans 5:12-19 makes it abundantly clear that all men are guilty of sin in Adam and inherit his sinful nature even as believers inherit the righteousness of Christ by imputation thus, our responsibility to God for our sin and inability to keep the law is primarily through Adam whose corruption and sinful nature we have inherited. As an illustration, regarding drunk driving laws...those laws punish men who are intoxicated and are driving under the influence. They are punished. Notice, in the principle of that law, we punish them for something beyond their ability at the moment, but hold them responsible for breaking the law. The same with sinners in Adam. We are punished justly because "in Adam, all sinned". Nick: Could you elaborate on what exactly was beyond their ability at that time? MOSES: to drive legally, that is in a non-intoxicated state. So following the illustration, men are sinners by choice through Adam, our federal head and representative in Creation. Thus, I believe as noted through numerous Scriptures that man does not have the ability to act against his own sinfulness because, in Adam, that is what we are by nature. Nick: Could you explain your view of common grace to me, and possibly touch on how it differs from Prevenient grace? MOSES: hmmm....well I would say that common grace is God's general benevolence on the righteous and sinner alike...His "sending rain upon the just and the unjust". I don't believe "common grace" is related in any way to God's redemptive will. Prevenient grace, as I theologically understand its usage, means that God's general redemptive will goes out to all, particularly those who hear the Gospel message. When they hear the
message, they receive this "grace" that "prepares them" to be able to choose, but still does not incline the will one way or another. Man's will remains wholly "free" or to use the philosophical term, it remains with a "liberty of indifference" so that it can equally choose to believe or not to believe with no restraint or determination toward either side.
Cross Examination Rebuttal
First I would like to thank Nick for a great cross-examination. My only regret was that we did not have enough time, but it has already been resolved to take more time on the next exchange. I think the cross-examination is the place where the “rubber really meets the road” so to say and there are a few issues that I would like to bring up.
I have only one main concern that I wish to voice from the cross-examination exchange: the inconsistency of man’s liberty to choose “as he wills” and the “necessity of grace to choose righteousness”. You stated: “My position regarding free will is simply this: Man is free in regards to the choices he makes, meaning that every option which is set before him, man has the freedom to choose that which he will. I believe that sin has ruined man to the point that apart from the grace of God they will never choose that which is good.” Quite frankly it sounds like you want to “have you cake and eat it too.” Allow me to explain.
First, the supposition regarding the will of man: “man is free in regards to the choices he makes, meaning that every option which is set before him, man has the freedom to choose that which he will.” Philosophically, this statement is suspect to different interpretations. As I understand the statement from yourself, however, I understand you to mean that man possesses the ability to choose to believe in Christ if he so wills. Thus, the problem, as you stated later is “not that they ‘can’t’ but rather they ‘won’t’…” There is a logical contradiction here as well as a Scriptural one.
Logically, one cannot be “free” to choose whatever one will between options set before you and, yet, need something more in order to be able to choose a certain thing. That is, man cannot both be “free” to believe in Christ whenever he wills and then also “need” grace to do so. The fact that you state grace is “necessary” logically implies that man cannot simply will to believe in Christ because he lacks the ability. Thus, I have no qualms with the statement that “sin has so ruined man to the point that apart from the grace of God they will never choose that which is good,” with the understanding that “that which is good” is “belief in Christ.” It’s maintaining that statement with man’s freedom to be able to “believe in Christ” or “not believe in Christ” at the same time that is logically suspect.
Scripturally, my problem is that there is no explicit statement that teaches this liberty on the part of man. Rather, over and over again, we see that man has become so universally and radically sinful, that “all the intentions of the heart of man are sinful” ( Genesis 6:5; 8:21; cf. Numbers 15:37-39; I Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3; 51:5; 58:3;130:3; Proverbs 4:23; 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 8:11; Isaiah 6:5; 53:6; 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14;13:23; 17:9; Matthew 7:11; 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24; 3:36; 6:44; Romans 1:18-2:16; 3:9-20, 23; 5:12-18; 6:23; 7:18-20, 8:6,7; I Corinthians 2:14; II Corinthians 3:5; Colossian 2:13, I Timothy 2:25; 6:5). Romans 3:10-18 is the summative assessment of man by God himself. “There is no one righteous…they have
all gone astray…there is none who seeks after God…” Likewise, Romans 6, in contrasting the believer in Christ as a slave to righteousness presents that in the light of fallen and unredeemed men being “slaves to sin.” The clear meaning and understanding of a “slave” is not one who is free, but rather one who is “not free”. Thus, the implied meaning is that our moral faculties to do righteousness – particularly our wills - are enslaved to sin as long as we remain unregenerate. Jesus himself taught this when he said, “whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.”
In regards to the response that man cannot believe in Christ “not because he ‘can’t’ but because he ‘won’t…” I find this to be wholly contrary to the Scriptures that I have clearly exposited in my opening affirmative statement. There is do denying the words in John 6:44 and 65: “no one is ABLE to come to me…”; nor the word in I Corinthians 2:14 that the “natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor CAN he know them…”; nor the words in Romans 8:7 that the carnal man “is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed CAN be…” These clearly speak of a lack of ability and not simply lack of will.
Now, at this point I should also like to reply to the assertion that the Bible in general shows that God gives a Prevenient grace to all men that enables all men to come to the Father. I would assert to you that this is wholly against the text in several ways. First, the Greek root word for “draw” (λκω [sic]) which means to “draw, to drag” (cf. John 12:32, 21:6; James 2:6; Acts 16:19). Thus, this is not a type of “wooing” taking place by the Father but an active work the Father that inevitably results in the “raising up at the last day” of the same ones who are “drawn.” It cannot be the case that God “draws” all men to Himself in this way for then it would necessarily follow that all who are “drawn” are also “raised up on the last day” which would mean that all men would inevitably be saved. Obviously, that is not the case. Interestingly enough, the parallel passage in John 6:65 reads “…no one can come to be unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” This word here is used in the sense of permission, or the bestowal of ability.
I should also point out that the response given by yourself concerning John 6:44 and the “Bible in general” presupposes that the Bible is not necessarily consistent in all its parts. I believe that the Bible presents a unified teaching concerning the doctrine of man. Thus, the parts of the Bible (i.e. individual texts) are entirely consistent with the whole. Thus, if human inability to believe in Christ through “free will” is not taught in the Bible, but rather that human natural do not possess the ability to believe in Christ is, then it is clear that it what should be believed.
“No one is able…” Jesus said. These words of Christ still stand unrefuted. The words of other Scripture still stand unrefuted and impeccable in their meaning that the natural man is unable to submit to the law of God, understand the things of the Spirit, and unable to please God (cf. Romans 8:7-8, I Cor. 2:12-14). There is no getting around the meaning of the Greek and its reference to“ability.”
In closing, the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon, concerning this text said, “It is
strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all
understand. "Now," says one, "I believe men can be saved if they will." My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful. supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ.” (Human Inability).
Man has not even the will to be saved apart from the drawing of the Father. The only way man wills to be saved is if God grants it to him. To God alone be the glory.
Cross Examination Rebuttal
I would like to thank Moses for choosing such an interesting debate format. I have never engaged in anything quite like the cross examination that we did. As has been stated by Moses, we will allow for more time in the next topic.
Concerning the charge of inconsistency, I would like to simply point out that it is a view that I do not hold which you have charged with inconsistency. This is evident from statements on your part such as:
(1) “I understand you to mean that man possesses the ability to choose to believe in Christ if he so wills.” (2) “That is, man cannot both be “free” to believe in Christ whenever he wills and then also “need” grace to do so.” (3) “It’s maintaining that statement with man’s freedom to be able to “believe in Christ” or “not believe in Christ” at the same time that is logically suspect.”
The first two were answered in the last statement I made during your time of
questioning. I said, “It is my position that God through his grace enables man to do these things… They do not possess the ability in and of themselves…”1 Concerning the last statement, it is not my position that man is both able to believe and not believe in Christ at the same time and in the same sense, which would necessitate a logical contradiction. It is my position that man unaided by grace does not possess the ability in and of himself to exercise faith in Christ. But once aided by the grace of God, man has the ability to either receive or reject Christ, to either believe in or not believe in Christ. Of course the choices are contradictory because they are opposite, but there is no contradiction is being able to choose between two things once given the chance to do so. Thus the myriad of scriptures you cited only went to refute a view that is not mine.
I would like to address your understanding of man being a slave to sin. From what I
gather you believe that man of necessity sins rather than of propensity. I would argue that Paul agrees with this statement of mine: “Sin has so affected the person that he will naturally unaided by God's grace continue in sin... Not of necessity, but rather of free choice...” when he asks, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to
1 Cf. with my opening statements:
“Nor do I believe that a man initiates the salvation process of his own will before being drawn by the Father, presented with the Gospel, and convicted by the Holy Spirit” (pg. 8) “In man’s state of sin (separation), he will not naturally seek after God (Romans 3:11).” (pg. 9) “nor do [I] hold to the Semi-Pelagian heresy that man initiates his own salvation apart from the Grace of God” (pg. 9)
obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Romans 6:16). A person is a slave to the one they yield themselves to obey, meaning that it is not of necessity, but rather of propensity that man serves sin or Christ. Man is inclined toward evil, yes, but every evil thought or act was carried out through the vehicle of choice. Marvin Vincent said, “Every man must choose between two ethical principles. Whichever one he chooses is master, and he is its bond- servant.”2 I could suggest that born again believers as slaves to righteousness have no choice but to obey righteousness, but then we would not be able to reconcile that statement with the scriptures which teach us of repentance and asking forgiveness (cf. 1John 1:9, 2:1). Thus in Jesus stating that “everyone who commits (present active participle) sin is the servant of sin,” he is not stating that they did not choose to sin, he is merely stating a fact, that those who continually sin are the servants of sin; neither ability nor inability is in view.
In regards to John 6:44, Romans 8:7, & 1Corinthians 2:14, I agree. As I have said
repeatedly, man in and of himself cannot believe in Christ, cannot serve Christ, will not seek God, etc… Thus there is no actual disagreement concerning these verses. The “not that they can’t but won’t” statement was made in the context of man’s necessity to sin. Once again, I believe that man has a propensity to sin but not a necessity. Looking back on that response, I regret the wording and probably should have taken an extra minute to formulate my response. But in terms of lack of ability, I believe this was clearly answered when I said, “Yes... I would agree that in and of himself, man is unable to come to Jesus.”
In reference to the “drawing” of John 6:44, I agree that all men are not drawn in this
sense as I specifically stated that this passage is in reference to believers. Thayer says of draw (λκσ), “to draw by inward power, lead, impel…”3 W.E. Vine said, “This less violent significance, usually present in helk, but always absent from sur, is seen in the metaphorical use of helk, to signify ‘drawing’ by inward power, by divine impulse, John 6:44; 12:32. So in the Sept., e.g., Song of Sol. 1:4, and Jer. 31:3, “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.”4 Spiros Zodhiates says, “To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force as in sur…”5 So while the text does state that a man is drawn contrary to his own ability, it does not carry the sense of dragging against one’s will.
2 Marvin Vincent. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, Romans 6:16 (E-Sword Bible Software). 3 Joseph H. Thayer. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 204. 4 W.E. Vine. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 183. 5 Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. electronic ed. (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000), G1670.
As far as a particular passage speaking of a particular thing while the Bible in general speaks of a general thing, this is not an affirmation that the Bible is not consistent in all parts. It only points to the fact that a specific passage has reference to a specific people, in this case, believers. For example, we would not consider scripture to be inconsistent for presenting women specifically with laws of purification after their monthly periods, while presenting the nation of Israel as a whole with laws of purification after coming into contact with any blood. We would simply accept it for what it is, a general rule for all and a specific rule for some.
At this point I want to address one of your comments, and will do so briefly due to
the limited space I have left. You drew an analogy between drunk drivers and sinful men stating that, “…we punish them [drunk drivers] for something beyond their ability [to drive legally, that is in a non-intoxicated state] at the moment, but hold them responsible for breaking the law.”
I find this to be a peculiar statement, and a faulty analogy. From this you imply that
man is held accountable for something that he cannot control (sin) in the same way a drunk driver is held accountable for something they cannot control (driving drunk). The major flaw in this analogy is that firstly, no one of necessity has to drink. Secondly, one who does drink does not of necessity have to drink to the point of intoxication. Thirdly, one who has drunk to the point of intoxication does not of necessity have to drive. Every step of the way free choice is involved, thus the drunk driver or sinner is held accountable for the acts they chose to commit. It is their ability to abstain had they so chosen which makes them ultimately responsible for the acts they have committed.
In closing, I do not hold that a man naturally wills to be saved apart from the grace of
God, nor do I hold that a man is naturally able to choose God apart from his Grace, thus much of your rebuttal was to a position that is not mine. I agree with John Wesley when he said,
“Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things.”6

6 John Wesley. “Sermon 128 - Free Grace” in The Sermons of John Wesley, 1872 Edition, ed. Thomas Jackson <http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/128.htm>
Closing Statement
I would like to thank Nick for a great debate so far. As we move through these exchanges, I hope that any who have come across them have been blessed and inclined to study the Scriptures themselves.
Before my closing statement, I would like to address only two issues from the previous rebuttal. The first is dealing with the word ελκυση (translated “draw” in John 6:44) and then on the necessity to sin.
It was said that the Greek word elko does not carry the same meaning as another word suro, which is apparently a more forceful way of “drawing, or dragging.” It should be kept in mind that context always determines the way a word is understood. Appealing to a root word, doesn’t necessarily give the correct meaning for a verb that is conjugated in a different way, or a declined noun in the Greek. For instance, the use of the word ελκυσαν (root elko) in Acts 16:19, is used in the context of “dragging” forcefully, perhaps against their wills, Paul and Silas into the market place to be presented before the magistrates. What of the use of λκουσιν (root elko) in James 2:6 which reads, “…Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?”(NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV “are dragging”). A form of the verb is also used in John 18:10 to “draw” a sword out of its sheath – clearly there is an overpowering force on the sword which is unable to sheath itself. In Acts 21:30, Paul is “dragged” (ελκον [sic]) from the temple. So what does it mean in John 6:44? While is doesn’t have the meaning of a “physical” drawing, it does have the meaning spiritually. Thus, this drawing of God still remains effective in taking the subject, which is not able to “come to Christ,” to where God wants them (regenerated unto faith and repentance). Never once in scripture is this “drawing” resisted or unable to bring about its intended results.
In regards to the “necessity to sin,” there are several passages of Scripture that teach the inevitability, and hence, the necessity of fallen creatures to commit sin. Already quoted was Jeremiah 13:23 which says, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to do evil.” The meaning is that just as an Ethiopian cannot change his skin color or a leopard its spots, for those are theirs by nature, indeed they are defining marks, neither can fallen and sinful humanity do “good” or “righteousness” because such is contrary to our nature. Also quoted from was Job 15:15-16 in which the mean is clearly that no sinful and impure man can produce anything acceptable before God. As Isaiah stated, “all our righteousness is as filthy rags.” (64:6)
If one is willing to assert that sinful and fallen men sin only “because they will,” and not “of necessity to their nature”, then one must be willing to assert that man may choose to stop sinning “at will” as well. But in the light of the passages just quoted above, I don’t see how that can ever be the case. Now, it is not denied that fallen humanity sins
willfully, but it must be understood that we sin willingly out of necessity to our fallen nature.
Now in this debate there has been much lingo thrown at each other. Those reading have probably been baffled with the theological language and terms like Pelagianism, and Augustinianism, etc…But what is the real issue with the doctrine of Total Depravity? At issue is the grace of God. For how are we to understand the grace of God if it is merely defined as something given that enables men to choose of their own wills whether or not to believe in Christ or not? Doesn’t this mean that “grace” is really our opportunity to will to believe in Christ? But what happens if we don’t’ believe. Is the grace slammed back in the face of the Creator? How can this be? How can the creature be in such a position to confound the grace of God?
My friends, I submit to you that if the grace of God is viewed in such a way - that it merely restores to men their freedom to choose - then what you have is essentially God giving man the opportunity to save himself! For the grace of God is nothing, and the cross becomes nothing, without the free will of man to make it all effective.
How is there Gospel in this? The true grace of God is one that comes to sinners who are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), and “draws” these to God by “making them alive” (Eph. 2:1) and resurrecting their dead souls, which are unable to do anything spiritual. I would submit to you that the “drawing” of God is also the true grace of God. It is a redemptive grace that infallibly draws the sinner to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. The grace of God comes to unable, and thus unwilling, sinners and gives to them the life they need to truly live. That is what makes the Gospel so glorious in all ages. That is part of the good news – that while we were unwilling to serve God and unable to do come to Christ, God “draws” sinners to Himself.
It is vain to put “freedom” in the hands of man to confound the grace of the Creator. The doctrine of Total Depravity is not a friendly doctrine for it sheds the light on our true conditions – without will to serve God. But the doctrine is taught in Scripture and an integral part of the glory of the love, mercy and grace of God in the redemption of men. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Closing Statement
I would like to thank Moses for a great debate as well. I think this series is going great! It is my prayer that we each leave this with a better understanding of the other’s position and the reader leave with a better understanding of both.
I would like to respond to a couple of things before making my closing remarks. The
first is the drawing of John 6:44 never being resisted. I agree that there is nothing in scripture which would show that this drawing is resisted, but at the same time this passage is speaking specifically of believers. There would be no reason for them to resist because had they resisted, they wouldn’t be believers. Secondly, it does not follow that because a thing is not resisted that it can not be resisted. Thirdly, I agree that the drawing is effective and I would say (as I did in my last response) that it is a drawing beyond our ability. Where I believe we differ is that I don’t believe it is a dragging against our will, meaning that it is not coercive, as the Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah, “…with loving-kindness have I drawn [ελκυσ, LXX ] thee” (Jeremiah 31:3).23
Staying with Jeremiah for a moment, I would like to comment on the question asked in Jeremiah 13:23 where he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil” (NIV). Clearly we cannot change ourselves, as true change is only possible with God. Jesus very plainly said that we can do no good thing apart from Him (John 15:4). It is not my position that a man can do any good thing in and of himself without the Grace of God. I believe this has been clearly stated throughout.
I would also like to point out that simply because sin is inevitable (which I
completely agree with) it does not follow that it is necessary. We have all committed some sin or another at some point in our lives, but we have not all committed every sin there is at every point in our lives. Calvinists would certainly agree with this as is evident from their definition of Total Depravity which states that man is not as bad or sinful as he could be, but rather his entire being has been affected by sin. That being said, we can see that sin in particular is avoidable whereas sin in general is not. Therefore there is no necessity to sin, because if there were then we would not be able to avoid any sin in particular. Rather the propensity to sin inevitably leads us all into some form of sin, but we would never claim that a murderer of necessity murders or a rapist of necessity rapes. These are particular sins which could have been avoided had the murderer or rapist so chosen to avoid them.
Concerning the statement that “…one must be willing to assert that man may choose
to stop sinning “at will” as well,” I believe that this is true. We can choose to stop sinning (or rather receive power over sin) by receiving Christ. Through the Grace of God
23 The LXX reads, “…γπησ σε, δι τοτο ελκυσ σε ες οκτρημα” (Jeremiah 38:3), The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, trans. Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2003), 951.
we can believe the gospel (Acts 18:27), repent of our sins (Romans 2:4), be saved (Ephesians 2:8-9), and receive a way of escape from all sin (1Corinthians 10:13). The believer is said to be “dead to sin” (Romans 6:2) and “he that is dead is freed from sin” (Romans 6:7). So once again, it is not in and of ourselves that we can stop sinning, but rather through God. It is the Grace of God that is at work within us prior to regeneration that makes these choices possible.
Moses asked the question “how are we to understand the grace of God if it is merely
defined as something given that enables men to choose of their own wills whether or not to believe in Christ or not?” I would assert that grace is not merely defined this way. Grace is the unmerited favor of God. Grace is divine empowerment to do what is right. Grace is that which restores right relationship with God. Above were listed just a few of the many things that the Grace of God enables us to do and rest assured, there are many more.24 Moses then asked, “But what happens if we don’t’ believe.” Jesus answered this question in John 3:18 when he said, “…he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (NKJV) I find the rest of the question to be loaded and full of emotional language. “Is the grace slammed back in the face of the Creator?” No, it is simply not received. “How can this be?” It can be because God has given man the ability to choose between the options he has set before him. “How can the creature be in such a position to confound the grace of God?” I don’t believe that not receiving salvation is confounding the grace of God and it would first have to be shown that it was. These questions follow from the presupposition that the doctrine of irresistible grace is true, which of course I disagree with. But we will cover this in the debates to come.
I also adamantly object to the idea that God giving men choices is essentially the
same as giving man the opportunity to save himself! Man is not the source of salvation, God is. Man is not the giver of the gift, God is. Man is merely the recipient of that free gift which has been offered. To quote Arminius,
“Take away FREE WILL, and nothing will be left to be saved. Take away GRACE, and nothing will be left as the source of salvation. This work [of salvation] cannot be effected without two parties — one, from whom it may come: the other, to whom or in whom it may be wrought. God is the author of salvation. Free will is only capable of being saved. No one, except God, is able to bestow salvation; and nothing, except free will, is capable of receiving it." Bernardus, De Libero Arbit. et Gratia.”25
The old analogy goes that the man who is drowning and is thrown a life preserver does not save himself he merely accepts the salvation which was offered. The Calvinist might object and say that dead men are not capable of grabbing hold of life preservers
24 See, The Works of James Arminius, 2:474 for an extended treatment of grace. 25 Jacobus Arminius. The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986), 1:496.
and that the sinner has already drowned, but this would create a faulty analogy that is inconsistent with scripture. Yes, scripture presents us with a picture of men who are dead in their trespasses and sins, but spiritual death is relatively dissimilar to physical death. Even in our state of spiritual death and depravity we are said to be created in the image of God (Genesis 9:6), we are given choices to choose from (Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15), and we have our faculties of reason (Isaiah 1:18). The physically dead have not these things therefore it is fallacious to compare the sinner who is spiritually dead with someone who is physically dead.
Is man depraved? Absolutely! Can man attain salvation apart from the grace of
God? Absolutely not! Is man so depraved that he needs to be born again in order to believe? Impossible! For the Bible declares that we must believe on the Lord Jesus to be saved (Acts 16:31), that God saves those who believe (1Corinthians 1:21), and that it is by grace through faith that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8)! To God alone be the glory and honor forever, amen!

total depravity debate

Documents