Understanding God’s election

cv5 · Wednesday at 4:06 PM

Col 1:23
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Col 1:28
Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

studier · Wednesday at 4:38 PM

Rufus said:

Firstly, thanks for the link. On the other hand, hopefully you know that there are many of us who will not rely on information nor conclusions from a reformed site other than to read a reformed opinion.

Historic Compatibilism does in fact deal with free will and determinism and each has been a discussion in Philosophy for millennia. This is the reason AI responded and complied as it did, because there is much more to draw from than reformed theology in order to get the broader historical discussion.

No one is tied to reformed theology opinion unless they choose to be and many of us in and out of theology do not choose to be. It's just another voice among many in a very long series of discussions with manifold subdiscussions and theories.

Rufus said:

IMO based upon everything I've read or heard, and as I've stated a few times, no one has resolved this issue of God's sovereignty in relation to human volition. If someone has, we probably wouldn't even know it's the solution. In concept we are likely in agreement re: this, but I won't agree with you outright because you load terminology with your reformed presuppositions.

Rufus said:

Bypassing any theological opinions for now, because they're typically tainted with presuppositions, why do you use "freely and willingly" and deny free will?

Rufus said:

But of course, you will load your opinions with reformed terminology and sentimentalism and innuendo to try to make it seem like no other theological opinion has an understanding of God's grace and of men universally under sin needing God's by grace salvation. But we do see and understand these facts, just differently than you do.

BTW, this is why I asked you to answer those questions from your recent post where I said the entire discussion of this thread could be addressed from it, at least as it concerns your input.

As you've said then and at other times, you do believe in choice which makes you fit into one of the divisions from historic Calvinism which as I recall does not believe men chose to be saved.

And you fall back on a very old philosophical theory called Compatibilism as if it's an answer that justifies your beliefs. But your concept of Compatibilism is not the historic version but just a Reformed differentiation of it.

Then you use words to describe the choice you made as "freely and willingly" but you deride free will. So, again all we're dealing with is another philosophical discussion turned theological discussion about theories concerning how God works with human volition.

At the end of the day what we're left with is that none of us know precisely how God's sovereignty works with human volition aka human will and even free will (not loaded with philosophical baggage). And none of us includes you as you've stated.

studier · Wednesday at 4:50 PM

CoPilot AI:

Q: What is free will?

Free will is the idea that humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates. Philosophers, scientists, and theologians have debated this concept for centuries. Some argue that free will is an illusion, shaped by external forces like genetics, environment, and unconscious brain activity. Others believe that while choices may be influenced, individuals still have agency over their decisions.

There are different perspectives on free will:

Determinism suggests that every action is the inevitable result of prior events, meaning free will does not truly exist.
Libertarianism argues that free will is real and that people can make choices independent of past events.
Compatibilism holds that free will and determinism can coexist, redefining free will in a way that aligns with causal inevitability.

The debate continues, with neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy all contributing insights into whether free will is genuine or just a compelling illusion.

My question about this: Shouldn't we just discuss Scripture?

studier · Wednesday at 6:02 PM

cv5 said:

In looking at it again (and again...) predestination seems simple (as it has before). It seems to me to boil down to foreknowledge as the issue for this thread topic.

Magenta · Wednesday at 6:12 PM

studier said:

But you keep bringing in other things and wanting to hash them out. Make up your mind???

studier said:

Kroogz · Wednesday at 6:22 PM

Rufus said:

Just think about it a bit. If God saved people through His Sovereignty. He would need nothing but His sovereignty. He could pick as a King. It is based on nothing but the Kings sovereignty. Justice, Love, righteousness does not matter.

But if salvation is based upon the character and nature of God and JUSTICE through His Cross..........

John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 makes perfect sense.

Equal privilege and equal opportunity for ALL. Perfect Justice/Righteousness......Through His Sovereignty.

Kroogz · Wednesday at 6:39 PM

studier said:

For me predestination is not about foreknowledge. True, God Knows all but the context is about the PLAN God has for His Children. Not about who or who is not His child.

It is about what has been predestined for each and every believer. The believer has a predestined plan.

It's not about "knowing" who will believe or not believe. It is about the plan God has for each and every believer.

A predestined plan for all who believe.

Mem · Wednesday at 7:01 PM

Kroogz said:

It's like as there is a place prepared for us with a note at the door saying, "unlock the door, it's yours, you'll find the key is in the flowerpot." And it's either comedic, tragic, or both, that many just try the doorknob and then shrug it off or expect somebody else to open the door for them.

Kroogz · Wednesday at 7:05 PM

cv5 said:

John 16~~ 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment: 9 regarding sin, because they do not believe in Me;

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Paul kicked against the pricks.........Hard to kick against things that you have never heard or been convicted of.

Kroogz · Wednesday at 7:23 PM

Mem said:

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved...... You and your household.

Everyone overlooks "you and your household."

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved....That goes for you and for anyone you know.

Equal privilege and equal opportunity for ALL.

lrs68 · Wednesday at 7:43 PM

You can actually wrap all of the predestination verses into a single category. They typically mean either through Jesus or how God will save has been decided long before God began creating the foundation of the world.

Rufus · Wednesday at 7:44 PM

studier said:

Compatibilism is not a philosophical theory! It's a biblical doctrine that is thoroughly rooted in the bible; and moreover plenty of examples of this doctrine are contained in scripture. (You must have you glossed over the several examples I provided in my 13, 879, which of course would be inconvenient truths for you.)

The second issue which I bolded in red is that you wondered why I used such terms as "freely" and "willingly" in my 13,879. I don't understand your bewilderment unless you didn't read the link I included in that post. Both the author and I believe that mankind, like God, are free moral agents. And what we mean by that is that unregenerate sinners are always free to make choices that align with their nature -- the same way God is! Sinners can no more make spiritual/moral choices contrary to their essence (nature) than God can. So...in that sense, sinners are just as free as God! And this definition of man's freedom of will comports beautifully with Jer 13:23, Mat 7:17-18, etc. which in turn are supported by the First Law of Logic (Law of Identity). Meanwhile, you FWers have no scripture to support your theories about what "freewill" is, nor do you have anything from Natural Revelation, such as any laws of logic, to which to appeal.
In other words, your theories on "freewill" are biblically and intellectually bankrupt!

One last note: You make a serious error about my theological stances when you try to compare me with other Reformed folks and what they believe. There is a reason why I am banned from some Reformed sites.

studier · Wednesday at 7:51 PM

Kroogz said:

Yes, certain things are predestined for those in God's Plan, so in Christ. This seems clear, at least to some of us.

We still need to contend with "whom He foreknew" and what this foreknowledge is. Rom8 is not detailed about it. Look at Rom11:2 and context and see what Paul tells us there.

Kroogz · Wednesday at 8:21 PM

studier said:

Still the same. God isn't talking about individuals and their individual salvation.

The Church has a predestined plan.

Israel has a predestined plan.

Each plan WILL stand. And He foreknew that plan.

studier · 2025-05-29T13:40:21-0400

Rufus said:

I do gloss over many of your posts which I've stated openly to you before. They simply contain too much error and are too full of reformed presuppositional terminology and eisegesis. And your handling of Scripture from your traditional perspective is simply more than I care to deal with at times. I've referred to it before as your throwing stuff against the wall and leaving it to others to clean it up. Then when I attempt to get you to deal with Scripture in context verse by verse you disappear.

When you say Compatibilism is a biblical doctrine, you mean a reformed doctrine do you not? A reformed doctrine that is debated as are all theories like Compatibilism in its various forms in philosophy.

Yes, discussions about fate and free will seemingly go back to the ancient Hebrews. But "Compatibilism" itself is more from ancient Greek Philosophy. You're coming along with your champions then into the Enlightenment where it was also apparently a big discussion and calling it a biblical doctrine as if we're supposed to accept this. And, as I've stated, Compatibilism deals with free will. So, the modified version you champion is again just a reformed doctrine among some of the reformed.

Rufus said:

I did glance through your linked article. Again, like many of your posts, it's difficult to read such articles closely because they're based in reformed thinking and when I start reading reformed presuppositional thinking the outcome is typically known in advance and are a waste of attention.

For someone who writes about 3 types of revelation, one related to God's Law in mankind's conscience, it remains odd to read your free moral agents theory where sinners can't make choices contrary to their essence. Even cartoon writers in this country were long ago showing the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other depicting the struggle of human conscience yet it seems you would have us believe the pagan could never make a choice for moral good. Isn't this against what Paul argues against the Jews in Romans that you even mentioned a few posts ago - the pagans show the work of the Law written in their hearts and their consciences functioning? Yet you continually negate such truths even soon after you've written about them.

FWIW, I don't normally use "free will" because it's mostly a philosophical debate. I do speak of human volition and human choice as do you. Those who disagree with your so-called doctrines have as much as you do to support their "doctrines" that oppose you, in fact they likely use many of the same verses and interpret them differently than you. Such is theology.

Even your use of Jer13 above, where you as usual focus on one clause and effectively ignore the context and even the rest of the verse that says they had "learned" to do evil. So, Jer is saying the spots were developed and now how do they get rid of them? The Prophets were typically sent to the people to issue God's legal case against them for covenant unfaithfulness. Yet you attempt to make a "doctrinal" case that all people are leopards with spots, which is a one-sided and erroneous use of the verse.

In regard to this, I was reading an article dealing with reformed thinking and noted a statement quoted from a book on the matter. It reminded me of you (my bold highlighting):

The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)

That seems to be your focus:

Another statement I thought was interesting is this commentary re: the condition of the tradition (my bold highlighting):

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the Reformed community has plenty of reasons to be concerned over the preponderance of disagreement in her ranks on at least the conflicting ways in which the subject of free will and the divine decree should be articulated. By way of example:

R.C. Sproul denied determinism yet affirmed “self-determination.” Sproul also rejected spontaneity of choice, whereas Douglas Kelly has favored it. Tom Nettles favors determinism whereas Burk Parsons was relieved to learn it is not an entailment of Reformed Theology. R. Scott Clark denies middle knowledge whereas Chad Van Dixhoorn affirms it. D.A. Carson and Richard Muller disagree on the freedom to do otherwise. Muller has also claimed that Reformed theology does not entail a form of determinism,** whereas John Frame, James Anderson, Greg Welty, Paul Helm and Paul Manata all recognize that Reformed theology operates under a robust principle of determinism.

It's just the typical mess of traditions and theology in general especially when dealing with philosophical theology. So, you'll have to pardon my not being impressed with your "doctrines" that you think substantiate your interpretations.

Rufus said:

I guess this is supposed to be some type of badge of honor. You are reformed and have boldly stood for TULIP in this thread. There are quite obviously divisions within Reformed as there are in most if not all traditions. As has been noted, Compatibilism is a sect of reformed thinking that simply disagrees with traditional Calvinism on the issue of human free will. Yet we're supposed to consider it a doctrine because you say it is.

studier · 2025-05-29T13:45:32-0400

Kroogz said:

As best I can tell, I think we mostly agree on foreknowledge and predestination for the Church. The topic is often discussed in terms of it being a corporate matter vs. an individualistic one (reformed).

I do think foreknowledge in Rom11 is worth some thought in regard to this.

Rufus · 2025-05-29T16:02:23-0400

studier said:

And you fall back on a very old philosophical theory called Compatibilism as if it's an answer that justifies your beliefs. But your concept of Compatibilism is not the historic version but just a Reformed differentiation of it.

Then you use words to describe the choice you made as "freely and willingly" but you deride free will. So, again all we're dealing with is another philosophical discussion turned theological discussion about theories concerning how God works with human volition.

At the end of the day what we're left with is that none of us know precisely how God's sovereignty works with human volition aka human will and even free will (not loaded with philosophical baggage). And none of us includes you as you've stated.

The second issue which I bolded in red is that you wondered why I used such terms as "freely" and "willingly" in my 13,879. I don't understand your bewilderment unless you didn't read the link I included in that post. Both the author and I believe that mankind, like God, are free moral agents. And what we mean by that is that unregenerate sinners are always free to make choices that align with their nature -- the same way God is! Sinners can no more make spiritual/moral choices contrary to their essence (nature) than God can. So...in that sense, sinners are just as free as God! And this definition of man's freedom of will comports beautifully with Jer 13:23, Mat 7:17-18, etc. which in turn are supported by the First Law of Logic (Law of Identity). Meanwhile, you FWers have no scripture to support your theories about what "freewill" is, nor do you have anything from Natural Revelation, such as any laws of logic, to which to appeal.
In other words, your theories on "freewill" are biblically and intellectually bankrupt!

studier said:

Compatibilism is a bible doctrine whether you want to see that or not. I could care less about Reformed sects, Calvinism, disagreements within Reformed Traditions, etc. Frankly, this strategy is another juvenile straw man! The only thing that concerns me is if this doctrine is actually in the bible or not. Your line of argument is simply an inane attempt to distract from this major question: Is it biblical or not!?

Here's how Jer 13:23 reads, Mr. Studier. I'll quote from your favored NKJV:

Jer 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good
who are accustomed to doing evil.
NIV

There's nothing in the passage above about the Israelites "learning to do evil". All the most literal translations render part B. of the passage as shown above. Even the NIV which you dislike so much renders B. in the same manner. Suppose the passage read this way:
"Neither can you CHANGE who are accustomed to doing evil". This rendering would not change the sense of the passage whatsoever.
No one, including Almighty God, can change their own essence! This is a fundamental truth taught in scripture and in the Laws of Logic. And there is no intelligent, rational, coherent refutation that anyone from any theological school could make to refute these facts.

Again, Compatibilism is clearly taught in the bible, accompanied with many examples. Here's one:

Gen 20:1-7
20:1 Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."

4 Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."

6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."
NIV

Passage Facts:

1. Abimelech pleads his innocence, clear conscience and clean hands before the Lord
2. God actually affirms his plea of innocence, not disputing it whatsoever
3. But at the same time God also states that his power (grace) was the primary, efficient cause behind the king's innocence
4. Abraham prays for Abimelech

Now...this latter point is very noteworthy, for why would Abraham pray to God to [presumably] restrain Abimelech's evil desires or impulses since you FWers don't believe in the efficacy of God's grace? Since FWers believe that sinners' "freewill" is efficacious, then why didn't Abraham and go and pray directly to the king?

So, what do you make of this: Did God "force" Abimelech to act against his will? Did He "coerce" the king? If he did, then how come Abimelech was totally unaware that God's hand was very much involved in his decision to not violate Sarah?

studier · 2025-05-29T18:39:43-0400

R: Compatibilism is a bible doctrine whether you want to see that or not. I could care less about Reformed sects, Calvinism, disagreements within Reformed Traditions, etc. Frankly, this strategy is another juvenile straw man! The only thing that concerns me is if this doctrine is actually in the bible or not. Your line of argument is simply an inane attempt to distract from this major question: Is it biblical or not!?

S: Sure it is. Whatever you say. A straw man to show you how it's used divisively within your sect and how it came about mainly through Greek Philosophy? Seriously? Do some homework.

R: Here's how Jer 13:23 reads, Mr. Studier. I'll quote from your favored NKJV:

Jer 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good
who are accustomed to doing evil.
NIV

There's nothing in the passage above about the Israelites "learning to do evil". All the most literal translations render part B. of the passage as shown above. Even the NIV which you dislike so much renders B. in the same manner. Suppose the passage read this way:
"Neither can you CHANGE who are accustomed to doing evil". This rendering would not change the sense of the passage whatsoever.
No one, including Almighty God, can change their own essence! This is a fundamental truth taught in scripture and in the Laws of Logic. And there is no intelligent, rational, coherent refutation that anyone from any theological school could make to refute these facts.

S: Firstly, this isn't about essence. This is about what has happened due to covenant unfaithfulness. The cure is to turn back to the Lord which is typically what the Prophets were sent by God to bring about:

Read Jer13:25 and see the cause for what's being stated. I'll post it for us:

NKJ Jeremiah 13:25 This is your lot, The portion of your measures from Me," says the LORD, "Because you have forgotten Me And trusted in falsehood.

Then, maybe this will help with the word (Hebrew & LXX Greek used in Jer13:23:

TWOT:

(1116a) לִמּוּד limmûd (taught)

limmûd. Taught. The taught ones in Isa 8:16 are the Lord's disciples who know his law. The Servant of the Lord, however, has the tongue and ear of the learned (Isa 50:4). Therefore all Israel's children await the messianic era with joy, for all will be taught by the Lord (Isa 54:13).

HALOT

4659 לִמּוּד/לִמֻּד

*לִמֻּד and לִמּוּד: למד, Bauer-L. Heb. 480v :: Kutscher Tarbiz 37:405; MHeb. לִימּוּד, לִמּוֹד, לִימּוֹדֶת accustomed, habit; Ug. lmd pupil, apprentice; Eilers WdO 3:1337; Driver Fschr. Eilers )1967

44: לִמּוּדִים, לִמּוּדֵי, לִמֻּדֵי, לִמֻּדָֽי:

—1. adj. taught, trained: with לִמּוּדֵי הָרֵעַ trained to do evil Jr 1323;

LXX - manthanō

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)

[BDAG] μανθάνω

• μανθάνω fut. μαθήσομαι LXX; 2 aor. ἔμαθον; impv. pl. μάθετε, ptc. μαθών; perf. 3 sg. μεμάθηκεν Jer 9:4, ptc. pl. μεμαθηκότες Jer 13:23; inf. μεμαθηκέναι Ps 118:7 (Hom.+)

1. to gain knowledge or skill by instruction, learn abs.

R: Again, Compatibilism is clearly taught in the bible, accompanied with many examples. Here's one:

Gen 20:1-7
20:1 Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."

4 Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."

6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."
NIV

Passage Facts:

1. Abimelech pleads his innocence, clear conscience and clean hands before the Lord
2. God actually affirms his plea of innocence, not disputing it whatsoever
3. But at the same time God also states that his power (grace) was the primary, efficient cause behind the king's innocence
4. Abraham prays for Abimelech

Now...this latter point is very noteworthy, for why would Abraham pray to God to [presumably] restrain Abimelech's evil desires or impulses since you FWers don'tbelieve in the efficacy of God's grace? Since FWers believe that sinners' "freewill" is efficacious, then why didn't Abraham and go and pray directly to the king?

So, what do you make of this: Did God "force" Abimelech to act against his will? Did He "coerce" the king? If he did, then how come Abimelech was totally unaware that God's hand was very much involved in his decision to not violate Sarah?

S: It's a shame you never tire of making false allegations and can't see beyond your TULIP nonsense. I and several others here can match anything you can raise from Scripture re: God's Grace.

I've already discussed God's sovereignty and man's volition with you. All you're doing is trying to force your favored solution upon us as some supposed doctrine of Scripture as theorized by reformed theology and disagreed with by others including other reformed. Repetition doesn't mean truth.

There's no doubt that God works in history with men. Whether or not it aligns with some revision of a historical philosophical discussion or whether or not it's ever been resolved within philosophy, theology, or philosophical theology is all opinion and theory.

Here's a LXX translation to try to find some precision:

LXA Genesis 20:6 And God said to him in sleep, Yea, I knew that thou didst this with a pure (clean) heart, and I spared thee, so that thou shouldest not sin against me, therefore I suffered thee not to touch her.

A few observations and questions:

How did this pagan king have a pure/clean heart in God's eyes given all you continually harp on re: the filth of man who can only function according to his depraved essence? You don't see some sense of moral choice here from a pagan?
Upon seeing how the pagan acted morally from a clean heart, God spared/saved him from sinning against Him and for this reason did not leave/allow him to touch her.
- Note this "leave/allow" - there may be something profound here to consider but not right now.
God was obviously involved here and evaluated this pagan king's heart and found it to be clean in the matter and acted accordingly
- You might want to consider this in your theory against free will, or volition, or choice or whatever you want to call it or not call it based upon your favored philosophical theories against filthy fallen man choosing to do good and God honoring and supporting it.

Yes, God works with men. In this case in response to a gentile king who acted with a clean heart. Aren't you able to see these things?

Kroogz · 2025-05-29T20:14:57-0400

Rufus said:

Now you're really speaking my language. Compatibilism was my DOCTRINE!.....But it always ends in determinism.

The Sunday sermon was compatibilism( the fools/lazy couldn't discern.)

Anyone with discernment could see full on determinism.......I thank God for those folks that woke me from my stupor.

Magenta · 2025-05-29T21:55:06-0400

studier said:

AREN'T YOU ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE biblical BASIS FOR TOTAL DEPRAVITY WITHOUT GOING INTO CONVULSIONS OF REVULSION?

It is apparent that what people are objecting to is their own made-up definitions instead of what terms actually mean.

While often misunderstood, the doctrine of total depravity is an acknowledgement that the
Bible teaches that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6) every part of man—his mind, will,
emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin. In other words, sin affects all areas of our being
including who we are and what we do. Everything is tainted by sin and “…all our righteous acts are
like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). We sin because we are sinners by nature.

Total depravity summarizes what the Bible teaches about the spiritual condition of fallen man.
Because the name “total depravity” can cause people to have wrong ideas about what is meant,
some people prefer to use terms like “total inability,” “righteous incapability,” “radical corruption”
or even “moral inability.” Yet what is important is not the name assigned to the doctrine but how
accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about the spiritual condition of fallen
man. No matter which name you use to refer to “total depravity,” the fact remains that when properly
understood it is an accurate description of what the Bible does teach on this important subject.

The total depravity of man is seen throughout the Bible. Man’s heart is “deceitful and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is “dead in transgressions” (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7).

The Apostle Paul summarizes the total depravity of man in Romans 3:9-18. He begins this passage by saying that “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” Simply put, this means that man is under the control of sin or is controlled by his sin nature (his natural tendency to sin). Then in the rest of this passage Paul quotes extensively from the Old Testament in explaining how sinful man really is. For example, we see that:

1—no one is without sin,

2—no one seeks after God,

3—there is no one who is good,

4—their speech is corrupted by sin,

5—their actions are corrupted by sin, and

6—above all, they have no fear of God.

So, when one considers even these few verses, it becomes abundantly clear the Bible does indeed teach
that fallen man is “totally depraved,” because sin affects all of him including his mind, will and emotions
so that “there is none who does good, no not one” (Romans 3:12). source

Understanding God’s election

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member