Does the Bible Teach the Doctrine of Total Depravity?

 

Cross Examination Rebuttal: Nick Norelli

 

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 in 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 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 have should took 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 (elkush), “to draw by inward power, lead, impel…”[3]  W.E. Vine said, “This less violent significance, usually present in helkō, but always absent from surō, is seen in the metaphorical use of helkō, 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 surō…”[5]  So while the text does state that a man if drawn contrary to his own ability, it does not carry the sense of dragging against one’s will.

 

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]

 

ב״ה