 |
| 
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/1/2002 7:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hello Everyone,
I have a question. Does total depravity rule out the possibility of election based on God's foreknowledge of who will respond with faith and repentance in the future? Total depravity as it is often defined affirms that man is completely incapable of making even the slightest move toward God and must be moved toward God by God himself. Imagine for a moment God sitting on his throne somewhere outside of time and He decides to look off into the future to see who will respond to Him in faith so that He can elect them to salvation and thanks to total depravity He sees that there is a grand total of ZERO people who make even the slightest response. Then God decides that the only way that He can have a people to elect to salvation is by first CHOOSING who He will save and then move these people who are dead in their sins towards Himself seeing how they are totally incapable of making even the slightest move themselves. By doing this doesn't this mean that God made election based on His sovereign will instead of his foreknowledge. It seems to me that total depravity must be redefined in order for one to maintain that God elects to salvation on the basis of who He foreknows to trust Him as savior. If one says that God looks off into the future and foresees all who will respond to Him as a result of his moving them to repentance then dosen't this still require a belief that election is based on God's sovereign will seeing how He foresees those whom He first moved towards faith and repentance?
Sincerly,
Yankee
Edited by - yankee on 08/01/2002 5:05:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/1/2002 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Great point! Arminian election (based on simple foreknowledge) and total depravity don't mix. But for all that's said by Arminians about libertarian free will, didn't Arminius agree with Calvin's view on depravity? I believe he did. Wesley as well.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/4/2002 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Total depravity requires uncondition election only if you add to it "irresistible grace." This is where Arminius and Wesley drew the line. Without God's sovereign grace, NO ONE would believe -- because of total depravity. But with God's sovereign grace, all CAN believe, but they can also persist in unbelief. The work of the Holy Spirit is the necessary ,but not sufficient, basis of faith.
I personally think this perspective best handles the passages in John where Jesus says that only those whom the Father calls can come to him (e.g. Jn 6). One can hold that God wants all to be saved, but all are hardened to the point where they won't believe on their own. (In this sense, they are "dead" in sin and "totally depraved"). So God universally works in hearts to soften them to enable them to believe, but not NECESSITATE that they believe. He restores their free will. Those who buckle under, he calls in a more direct sense, and they come to know Jesus Christ as Lord.
Does it work?
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/5/2002 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Mr. Boyd,
You asked, "Does it work?". I'm really not sure how to answer this question. I will say that I recognize the fact that total depravity doesn't necessarily require a belief in unconditional election. As for me I was raised under a belief system that placed foreknowledge ahead of foreordination. God simply chose his elect on the basis of whom He foresaw as responding to Him in faith. I will say that I recognize as truth the belief that nobody can come to God without being drawn and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Whether I believe in total depravity or not depends on how it is defined I suppose. I do fail to understand why I should feel compelled to believe that being spiritually dead in sins must necessarily put a man in such a position where he is totally unable to make even the slightest move toward God. As dead in our sins as we are we still do some good things. It would seem to me that even though man cannot approach God without being drawn and empowered he could still make at least a slight and imperfect attempt at seeking to find God. It would seem to me that if God was to see a sinner making a feeble and imperfect attempt to find God that in his compassion He would send his Holy Spirit down to draw him and give him the faith and repentance necessary to get saved. I do believe that God's salvific will is for all to come to repentance. So what do you think Mr. Boyd?
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/5/2002 3:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Yankee-
My guess is that "Mr. Boyd" is Greg's Dad! Go ahead and call Dr. Boyd "Greg," "Doc," "Heretic," or "Partially lipped one," but don't feel like you gotta call him "Mr." anything.
Am I wrong Doc? 
Besides the theological question your asking, Yankee, there is of course a clearer more easily argued reason for rejecting the "Predestination based on Foreknowledge" (e.g. Simple Foreknowledge) view, and that would be the providential uselessness of such knowledge and the impossibility of God's being able to make use of such knowledge in an attempt to determine his own actions.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/05/2002 08:34:17 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/5/2002 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB,
Great to hear from you. As far as I knew I was responding to Dr. Boyd the author of God of The Possible himself; however, if it was his father that is still perfectly all right with me. I would never refer to Dr. Boyd as heretic or partially lipped one. As for me I have already moved away from the position of my upbringing and now accept foreknowledge and foreordination as simultanious events. With regards to providential uselessness the belief of my upbringing has the effect of depicting God to me as sitting on his throne with his hands tied behind his back with chains He is powerless to break for if He was to intervene and prevent from occurring what He foreknows will occur then He ends up rendering his own foreknowledge less than perfect. From my pespective this belief exalts God's foreknowledge at the expense of diminishing His freedom, omnipotence, and sovereignty.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/5/2002 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Dear TGB,
Great to hear from you. As far as I knew I was responding to Dr. Boyd the author of God of The Possible himself; however, if it was his father that is still perfectly all right with me. I would never refer to Dr. Boyd as heretic or partially lipped one.
Hi Yankee-
I was trying to be funny. It doesn't usually work, so I'm not really disappointed that it didn't work this time either!  In heaven I expect to be blessed with the ability to make people laugh.
Take care,
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 8/5/2002 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Well Tom you did get a giggle out of me!
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/5/2002 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB,
Don't sweat it. I suppose that I probably called in sick the day they passed out senses of humor. You ole heretic you. Just kidding! Have a great day.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 37
| Posted 8/10/2002 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Yankee,
Your topic is relevant. I was talking with a friend and he believes that there is an illumination other than general illumination that is required for salvation. I do not understand how this is consistent w/ any type of free will. My reasoning is that if if all believers requrie and additional dose of illumination to have belief in Jesus then it is the same as saying that God chooses who will not believe. I was wondering if you hold to the same view?
Some people are like cement. All mixed up and permanently set. | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/20/2002 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear kcy1998,
First of all I would like to apologize for taking so long to respond. I was on vacation a week ago. First let me say that I recognize as true the belief that salvation is only through Christ. When you speak of general illumination and the other illumination required for salvation it would be quite easy to move into a discussion about salvific inclusivism. I do not feel that I possess a great enough knowledge of the scriptures to answer whether or not God would bring someone who has never heard of Jesus or the gospel toward himself through His son by the power of the Holy Spirit without first giving him a greater illumination. When I started this post what I had in mind were people who have heard of Jesus. I do not believe that God chooses who will not believe. I do believe that God desires all to be saved. I also believe that it is possible to resist God's gracious offer of salvation when He is drawing us to himself. When it comes to total depravity, If the definition that calvinists give is the only acceptable definition then I reckon I don't believe in total depravity. I do recognize the fact that we are all depraved to the point that none of us can get to Heaven without Christ's sacrifice and God's forgiveness.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 8/26/2002 3:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Everyone
I feel that this post may be of the handbrake-turn variety, but how about this for a way of thinking about election?
Yankee:
quote:
Does total depravity rule out the possibility of election based on God's foreknowledge of who will respond with faith and repentance in the future?
When the bible talks about election, is it really talking about God choosing who will be saved? The nation of Israel were God's chosen, or elect, people that he used to bring about his purposes. Jesus was God's chosen one, the elect one, that God used to bring about his plans. People could be part of Israel through faith in God. We can become God's elect by believing in Jesus. We are not elect to become Christians, but become part of God's elect when we get put into Christ.
"For he chose us in him..." (Ephesians 1:4)
So in a way, total depravity isn't to do with election, because election isn't to do with getting saved.
But feel free to shoot me down...
love
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/26/2002 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim, this is a post in support of the spirit of your post!
You decide.
What follows is a scan from the Letters to the Editor page of Reformed Worship magazine (published by folks connected with Calvin College, and the Christian Reformed Church in North America).
quote:
(Two issues before, some poem had been published. Some below object. Try to figure out what the issues were!)
"Two Gray Cats" and the Doctrine of Election
I have been a subscriber to Reformed Worship since the first issue and have always appreciated the many ideas and perspectives in the magazine. I was very disturbed therefore to read the poem 'Two Gray Cats" (RW 63, p. 21) in the article "A Classic TULIP Bouquet." This poem is a horrible example of the doctrine of election and was a poor choice for a magazine whose primary focus is on corporate worship. Fatalism does not belong in a magazine such as this. The Christian Reformed Church denominational publication The Banner had an excellent article on this topic in the Dec. 31, 2001, issue. As Rev. Timmer states in the article "Election Is a Story," "the Bible does not say that God chooses only a few people and rejects most people." And "the greatest abuse of the biblical teaching of election occurs when we divorce election from the mission of the elect." This poem is an embarrassment to an otherwise quality publication and I am extremely disappointed in the editorial staff for including it in the article.
J.F., Boone, Iowa
I am a bit puzzled by the poem "Two Gray Cats" (RW 63, p. 21). I suppose the most natural way to read the poem is as a parable of election, since that is the theme of the article. The point of the parable then is that two needy sinners came to God seeking salvation. God let one through and kicked the other away. Is this the message you are encouraging us to communicate to the congregation assembled for worship?
This is not a theoretical question; I have already had one member of the congregation ask if this poem represents the Reformed understanding of election. Do you think it does? I hope not, but then I wonder why it is included in an article about Reformed theology.
T.N.(pastor), Ames, Iowa
Editorial comment: The poem certainly does not represent a Reformed view of the doctrine of election; it was included as an example of how many Christians, including Chad Walsh, are baffled by a doctrine that could make God seem so arbitrary. In retrospect, we should have been clearer about the poem's purpose and should have placed it within the section "Election is baffling" rather than at the end of the sermon notes after the final section, "Election is balm," which included the statement "Calvin saw election as a doctrine that provides deep comfort and assurance. . . . For those who have accepted Jesus, there are no worries for eternity." —ERB
DOWN WITH STRAWMEN!!!
(Not you, Starkman.  )
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/26/2002 5:00:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/29/2002 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Timlings,
Good to hear from you. I have no desire to shoot you down. The subject of election is a complicated issue and there are many different views about it and each seek to present a scripturally faithful explanation for all that pertains to it. I have given more thought to my analagy I made at the start of this thread and it seems to me that one might suggest that God in his infinite wisdom would have been well aware of the effect of total depravity and could easily decide to equip everyone with resistable faith and resistable repentance and then look forward into the future to see who will make a positive response and elect all who make a positive response. If I were to assume this to be true I would still have some problems to seek an answer to. I would still have to ask myself if it is possible for one who is totally depraved to make a positive response to the grace and faith and repentance he is given by the Holy Spirit if the grace and faith and repentance is possible to resist. Are the doctrines of total depravity and resistable grace compatable? Could it be that total depravity makes irresistable grace necessary for one to receive Christ? It would seem that if God knew that the only way that He could indiscriminately elect from who He forsees giving a positive response was to use irresistable grace on everyone then we would be forced to conclude that everyone gets saved. Well perhaps when I'm 120 years old I'll have it all down pat.
Sincerly,
yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|