Total Depravity and Choosing God

[SamIam]

It is my understanding that Augustinianism (and Calvinism) teach that due to Adam's sin all are born in total depravity. Among other things, this means that no one, without being regenerated, is capable of, or even interested in, expressing faith in God. It is my understanding that they teach that no one chooses God until God has first regenerated them, and God regenerates only those he has unconditionally chosen.

How then, does the Calvinist explain the existence of Islam? Here are millions energetically reaching out for God. (I'm not saying they are are finding him, just observing that they are reaching for him.) If they are unregenerate, they should show no interest in God.

[darinhouston]

Good question, but I recall hearing them say something like they aren't seeking after the same God.

[SamIam]

I think you are going to be right.

[Sean]

How does the Calvinist explain people falling away from the faith? They usually say that they were never really saved, yet how did they ever show interest in Jesus/God/salvation in the first place if they weren't regenerated? Some people go many years giving their lives to help others and serve the Lord only fall away. But if Calvinism is true, then these people should not have shown any interest in the things of God.

[steve]

They say that such people never had any genuine interest in God on His terms. They say that these people secretly (perhaps even unbeknown to themselves) were never really loving God or truly repentant. This assumption seems so uncharitable as to be unworthy of any Christian theology, but it is demanded by Calvinism's presuppositions.

[steve7150]

How then, does the Calvinist explain the existence of Islam? Here are millions energetically reaching out for God. (I'm not saying they are are finding him, just observing that they are reaching for him.) If they are unregenerate, they should show no interest in God.






I think this is a really good point which applies to any kind of people of faith looking for God to the extent they can know him.

[NJchosen]

The Parable of the Sower Matthew 13 is a good picture of men who come to God and then fall away versus have genuinely received the word and were fruitful. Even as a former arminian I remember believing there are those who claimed to know Christ but fell away from the faith. Men who professed faith, did many good things, served in Church, witnessed, etc, but later fell away. I would say if they never returned, then they were never truly of God, regenerated. But if they return because of conviction and God's chastening His child driving him to return, then their faith is genuine. These are ideas I gather from scripture.

Also when God calls a person to Himself and they become born again through faith and grace, they are not just called to believe, but also to a life of holiness. 1 Thess 4:7 God has not called us to impurity, but in holiness

A believers life will be fruitful and their theology biblical.

Do unregenerate sinners seek after Christ? No. Romans 3.

[steve]

I have a couple of reactions to the above:

1. Why do you contrast those who received seed on stony ground with those who "genuinely received the word"? The passage does not say that these did not "genuinely" receive the word. In fact, it says that they "immediately receive[d] it" (Matt.13:20). Jesus does not raise the issue of the genuineness of their receiving the word—only the impermanence of it. One must import Calvinist assumptions to make the text speak of inadequate reception—because the text itself does nothing to support the Calvinist beliefs about it. In the parallel in Luke 8, it says that these are people who "believe for a while." Again, there is no suggestion that their believing was not genuine believing. It only teaches that they did not continue to believe. If we were to take the wording of these texts without the importation of Calvinist assumptions, we would have to conclude that these people actually did receive and believe the word of God. Their problem was not in their failure to do this, but in their failure to continue doing this.

2. Why do you cite Romans 3 as support for the suggestion that the unregenerate do not seek God? There is no such statement in that chapter (nor elsewhere in scripture). You could, if you wished, argue from verse 11 that no one at all seeks after God, but there is nothing said about the special failure of unregenerate as a class to do so. Calvinists import the word "unregenerate" into the passage although nothing in the passage, nor in Romans, gives the slightest support for the inclusion of this modifier. It is not exegesis, but eisegesis (like most Calvinist explanations).

Of course, it is clear that some people—both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament—do seek God, including unregenerate people, like Cornelius (Acts 10). So why does David (or Paul, paraphrasing David) say that "there is none who seeks after God" when, clearly, some people do so? There seem to be two options:

One is to take the description to refer to a certain group within humanity (like the unregenerate), and then to say that no one in that group seeks God. This is what Calvinists do, but which Paul clearly does not do. It would be easier to take this position if it resembled something that Paul (or David) seemed to be wanting to say. However, neither the context of David nor of Paul give the impression that they are dividing mankind into two groups, and making an absolute statement about one of these groups to the exclusion of the other.

The other option is to suggest (as context would direct) that David, in Psalm 14, is using hyperbole. He looks around at the world and sees very, very few who seek God. Despite the absolute-sounding assessment, he nonetheless knows of exceptions. The writer is, of course, himself an exception, as are those he mentions later in the Psalm, calling them "the generation of the righteous" (v.5). He does not refer to a phenomenon of regeneration that characterizes these people, in contrast to others. In fact, I am not aware of any biblical data that would teach that regeneration was a human experience at all before the resurrection of Christ (cf., John 7:39; 1 Peter 1:3).

David sees such rampant disregard for the pursuit of God, that he cries out, "They have all turned aside...there is none who does good...!" (He actually does not state that "there are none who seek after God," though Paul's words to that effect seem to be a free, original paraphrase of the intent of Psalm 14:2-3). That the psalmist is not being literal, but is freely resorting to hyperbole is seen clearly enough by his statement, in verse 4, that the bad guys "eat up my people as bread" (I seriously doubt that anyone was literally spreading peanut butter and jelly on the Jews and eating them for lunch). Neither David, nor Paul, intend for these statements to be taken absolutely, but generically.

In Paul's quotation of this Psalm, there is no evidence that Paul is dividing humanity into two groups (regenerate and unregenerate), but rather, in the context, he is endeavoring to show that people (whether Jew or Gentile) can be about equally wicked (See Romans 3:9), and that the possession of the law has not made the Jews into a morally superior people (a point he has been working on since at least 2:13ff). Paul is expecting his readers to know that the various denunciations from the Psalms and Isaiah, which he is quoting in Romans 3:10-18, have Jewish people as their target (which Paul states plainly in verse 19). Thus, Paul is not discussing the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity (to the great disadvantage of Calvinists, who lean heavily on this passage to create this doctrine), but he is making the point that the Jews (as these scriptures he quotes testify) are just as rotten as anybody else, and do not need the law—which they already have, and which has not transformed them into better people—but they need the righteousness that comes apart from the law, through grace (vv.20-24).

Calvinists rarely look at context. They proof-text. When the proof-texts are lifted for rhetorical purposes without regard to the author's intent, they are abusing the scripture. This is a shameful practice. The sooner they desist from this disrespectful treatment of the scriptures, the sooner they will see why no Christians held their doctrines for the first 350 years after Christ.

[NJchosen]

Steve,

I never got to say thanks for your study on Revelation you did years ago. The questioning of Dispensationalism opened my eyes to what I had believed while I was at Calvary Chapel. It also lead me to become a Calvinist, but I still am open as I can be trying to always test my beliefs in light of scripture. I guess once burned (so to speak) caused me to always double check.

About a book. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ written by John Owen, introduction by J.I.Packer had quotes from Christians in ancient times who wrote about Christ's death and what it was for, very similar to the Calvinist today.

Now with regard to Romans 3 your saying "none seek after God" doesn't mean that no one does and there is examples of those who do and that this is a hyperbole in the Psalms. Alright, I'll accept what your saying, so there are only some who don't seek after God. But what about there's none righteous? If I follow this understanding I need to be consistent and also say there are some righteous, there are some who understand, there are some who do good, are useful, who have tongues who don't deceive, no cursing in their mouths, they fear God before their eyes.

If the above is true about what your saying, then verse 3:19 should also be understood in a limited way for that is the train of thought. Do you think not all are under Law? But only some?

However I understand that it does speak to all humanity being under Law and accountable to God. There is also verse 23 all have sinned. As a former Arminian I can say I believed even that Romans 3 spoken of all and not just some but couldn't reconcile this with my former beliefs. Most of my arminian friends also believed no one sought after God. So this isn't just a Calvinist idea. Returning to what Paul said, "there is no distinction" between Jew and Gentile, we are all under sin. The thought that flows through here seems to be referring to all humanity.

[steve]

About a book. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ written by John Owen, introduction by J.I.Packer had quotes from Christians in ancient times who wrote about Christ's death and what it was for, very similar to the Calvinist today.

I have the book and have read Packer's introduction (because someone told me that his introduction alone was worth the price of the book). When I tried to read Owen himself, he put my feet to sleep up to the hips. It has been over ten years since I read Packer's intro, and just pulled it off my shelf again to see the quotes from the fathers which he used. Scanning through, I could not quickly spot them. If you would tell me the page numbers where they are cited, I will look at them again.

Now with regard to Romans 3 your saying "none seek after God" doesn't mean that no one does and there is examples of those who do and that this is a hyperbole in the Psalms. Alright, I'll accept what your saying, so there are only some who don't seek after God. But what about there's none righteous? If I follow this understanding I need to be consistent and also say there are some righteous, there are some who understand, there are some who do good, are useful, who have tongues who don't deceive, no cursing in their mouths, they fear God before their eyes.

Yes, my comments apply to these phrases as well. Let's look at the individual statements in Paul's collage of Old Testament texts, and see whether they are universal statements or not:

"There is none righteous..."
Throughout the scripture, there are always some who are regarded as "righteous" (e.g., Job 1:1/ Luke 1:6). In the Psalms and Proverbs alone, there are nearly 90 references to "the righteous";

"there is none who understands..."
Except for the ones who do "understand" (Prov.28:5/Ps.107:43/Dan.12:10);

"there is none...who seeks after God"
Yet, the author himself was such a seeker, as are others who were known, in his day, to "seek the Lord" (e.g. Psalm 34:10; 105:3/ Pr.28:5) ;

"With their tongues they have practiced deceit"
But then there are those guileless ones, who "do not lie" (Prov.14:5/John 1:47/Rev.14:5).

"their feet are swift to shed blood"
Would you consider this to be descriptive of all of your unsaved friends? Have you called the police?

"there is no fear of God before their eyes"
But the writer certainly knew of many who "feared the Lord" (Psalm 15:4; 22:23; 34:9; 115:11,13; 135:20) and the fear of the Lord is a phenomenon spoken of scores of times in scripture.

I would point out that, of all the references I have just provided (and there are many more that can easily be mined with a concordance), only one or two could possibly be describing "regenerated" people (Daniel 12:10 and Revelation14:5). In other words, these are not terms distinguishing "regenerate" from "unregenerate" folks. It is simply describing people's choices.

By the way, when people are actually described as "seeking the Lord", the scripture does not say that this happened because of the sovereign working of God in their hearts, but it says that they themselves "prepared" or "set" their hearts to seek the Lord (e.g., 1 Chron.22:19/2 Chron.11:16; 12:14; 19:3; 20:3/ Ezra 7:10). Paul said that God has distributed the nations in such a way as to encourage them to seek the Lord (Acts 17:27).

David's and Isaiah's words (quoted by Paul, in Romans 3) are obviously hyperbole.

If the above is true about what your saying, then verse 3:19 should also be understood in a limited way for that is the train of thought. Do you think not all are under Law? But only some? ...I understand that it does speak to all humanity being under Law and accountable to God.

Only the Jews are regarded, in scripture, as being "under the law" (1 Cor.9:20-21). That was the glory of the Jews. God had never given such laws to any other nation (Deut.4:5-8).

Even if the Gentiles could, in some extended sense be said to be "under" or "answerable to" God's laws (which is questionable—Rom.2:14), the context of Romans 3 is specifically about the Jews and the law, as is easily seen by following Paul's argument from the beginning of the chapter, and even earlier..

There is also verse 23 all have sinned.

Yes, but Paul's whole statement is, "For there is no difference; for all have sinned..." No difference between what? Between Jews and Gentiles. This is the capstone of his argument from the beginning of the chapter. The Jews thought they were different from (better than) the Gentiles, because of their having the law (2:17-20; 3:1-2). Paul says that it is not the possession of the law, but the keeping of the law that makes a better man (2:13), and that the Jews have not exceeded the Gentiles in that department (3:9). To make his point airtight, Paul quotes a litany of complaints about wicked Jews from the writings of David and Isaiah (3:10-18). These passages are confirming that Jews (to whom and of whom the passages are speaking—v.19) can be about as wicked as they usually considered the Gentiles to be, and are, in any case, "no better" (v.9).

So what does Paul conclude? "There is no difference" (v.22) between Jews and Gentiles upon racial or privilege grounds, but "all (Jews and Gentiles) have sinned (about equally) and come short of the glory of God" (v.23).

Of course all humans have sinned. All theological camps agree on this. However, if we think that Paul is here trying to make a case against every individual (namely, that no one has ever understood, or sought God, or been obedient to Him), then we will miss Paul's whole meaning, and will set him at odds with hundreds of scriptures that speak about people who do indeed seek God and understand and obey Him.

Paul was not a Calvinist trying to declare total depravity here. Romans is very far from being a Calvinistic document (e.g., 2:11; 10:6-13; 11:22). In Romans 3, Paul was one Jew seeking to convince his fellow Jews that they did not have any grounds for thinking themselves superior as a race to the Gentiles, simply because of their having God's oracles given to them.