Does the Bible Teach the Doctrine of Total Depravity?

 

Nick Norelli

 

 

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. 

 

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 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

 

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” בְּחַרְתֶּם) you the LORD, to serve Him.--And they said: 'We are witnesses'” (vs. 22, JPS).

 

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. 

 

ב״ה