The Here I Stand Theology Podcast "The Doctrines of Grace - Total Depravity"

Here I stand I Can do no other. Will you recant or will you not? Majesty in your Lordships desire a simple reply unless scripture and By plain reason popes and councils who have so often country is captive right now safe.

Total Depravity and the Doctrines of Grace

Theology podcast Special edition episode 2. BG is with us again, brother Gregory. From the unmerited favor podcast We are going to be discussing the doctrines of grace in this series. Primarily today our focus will be on Total depravity.

With that being said, let's go ahead and bring bring BG in here. We are.

Hey, here I am. We're on old Tommy TV, absolutely, it's a pleasure to be here in the past.

Well since we're talking about old theology I figured we might as well go we might as well go back as far as we could. Electronically, right, right. Exactly. Yeah. No, it works. I like it a lot. This is in living color.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah on these good old timey CRT televisions.

These were that these are the ones where we were or I were actually probably not we it's probably before our time. Where? Our our Grandparents were the remotes if you wanted the channel change.

I.

Remember our TV, you know. One of them that we had had the two knobs and you got to get up and turn the knobs and the other one. A friend of mine. He had one of those fancy 13 button boxes. That would that had the buttons to change the channel it was.

So you could sit somewhat far back and change the channel.

He was that was that was the fancy times. And then just whack the side of it. Oh, yeah I need to be clear. It's not coming in. Hit it a few times if if you want high def whack it twice.

Draw straws to see who has to climb up onto the roof to turn the antenna.

Exactly man I'm not kidding. Then this is all organic conversation and I'm liking this because that made me. Remember, how did you go up on the roof to do that?

We know so we fortunately had we never ended up with the antenna at personally. We had cable so things were great. Another friend of mine. They had an antenna, but they had Outside at the base the hand cranks and so like you could crank it to to adjust to make major adjustments.

Other than that, we did have a TV with rabbit ears. And so you're over there, you know trying and then and then when you're the unlucky one. Who gets the good signal because you touched it? You're not allowed to sit back down and so you're like watching the thing like this the whole time.

So so yeah.

Yeah, I remember literally climbing up the antenna pole 10 and 15 feet with your feet against the wall like your Batman climbing up the side of the building in the old episodes I remember that. All right, so I'm Claude.

I'm the happy Calvinist. This is brother Gregory. We are back again for the second installment of this series on the doctrines of grace. And so tonight we are going to be discussing Total depravity. We are going to do our best to Biblically define total depravity.

We are going to be talking about the converse of total depravity which is the Armenian view Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism as well. We're going to be getting a lot of history tonight. Greg's going to be talking to us about the Augustinian and Pelagian Controversy which really this is this Kind of goes back to the to the the root of the argument here.

Yeah, this is not a new topic.

As far as the church is concerned.

So what is total depravity. Greg. Oh boy.

So total depravity the the simplest example and the simplest answer is that we are dead in our sin. That the the state of unregenerate man is Death that we are dead in our sin dead in our trespasses and our transgressions.

Whatever, you know English word you want when you translate those Greek words. But we are dead. That is total depravity meaning that there is no goodness in us. Which we can leverage for our own salvation in every in any part.

Yeah. The you know that the little footnote of course is don't go too far and make it Universal as a description of all creation. We are we have total depravity, but we are not Thoroughly evil. We exist.

God created us and all things. If you go too far if you if you abuse if you will the concept of total depravity you end up in the heresy of Gnosticism which is that the physical is all evil and only the spiritual is good.

And that is not what you know. That is not what we're saying. That's not what scripture says, but scripture is clear. We are dead in our trespasses. So as a matter of our standing with God for for justifications.

Within the context of justification. We are dead.

Exactly and I think another another term that we might interchange with With total depravity is the term radical depravity as you said. You know radical depravity might be Steve Lawson in an article on Ligonier comm.

Actually him and RC Spro really went to changing the Letters of the acronym and tulip so they use the terms which are very very good. They are. Not that we have to make it more palatable, but they are more palatable terms for radical depravity.

Sovereign election when it comes to Unconditional election right sovereign election limited atonement definite atonement Irresistible call they left the same effectual call and then of course The perseverance of the Saints a doctrine of perseverance of the Saints, but they they use the term preserving grace.

Which is which is synonymous you really when we get right that we'll be talking about that. But radical depravity is a good term to use if you're speaking with friends or family members. That are. That that are Anti reformed theology.

And I Calvinist right that that attempt to. Just change the term to sneak it into conversation. Yeah, people immediately shutting it down. Yeah. No, I I.

Get it.

Uh-huh, every every few years just make up a new term for it.

So if we are to understand total depravity The scriptures teach and we're what we're speaking about is South Salvific Lee primarily right when we're talking about this because this is really a soteriological.

The the doctrines of grace are really aimed at soteriology, right, right, right.

And you know, which is why I also brought up that that issue of Gnosticism. Um.

The.

So salvation. Mm-hmm the the term salvation includes justification and sanctification. So when when we speak of salvation it is the one time and then the continual Acts of God grace grace of God. When you get into the the tulip the Armenian Calvinist debate.

If.

Initially it's not about matters of sanctification. It's not even about matters of is an Unbeliever capable of what one would define as righteous acts. By by human standards mind you it's really about that that initial point that Justification and so total depravity is a matter of in one's standing with God.

One has no ability to by his own merit or abilities Save himself or choose to be saved. So that's total depravity. It is again not to say that No, man is is, you know incapable of Giving food to his to his children.

Everyone has God's common grace in that area or else all of humanity would just implode.

So.

But yeah, so this is a matter of salvation. This is a matter of justification.

And so some of the some of the key texts, what would you say are some of the key scripture texts that point us to.

Total or radical depravity. So and and with that and we can excuse me, we can go to the so wonderfully written and poorly organized canons of doors.

Which.

You.

Like I mean like a better a better table of contents would have at least been been helpful. Um, so so. Because again, it's one of those. How do you how do you reference it cleanly the third and fourth heads of doctrine?

So that's your your main point. And then we skip past the articles and we go right into the rejections rejection for and so I'll read the rejection and then the response to it and For a little bit of background just as far as the proceedings for the the Synod of Dort.

The.

Canons of door are a record of really that that discussion that debate that analysis addressing the points of Arminianism and so it is written out so that you have articles that they wrote which are the reformed biblical Orthodox understanding of Scripture and then after their articles of faith.

They go into the rejections where they write out What the Arminian view is and then they respond directly to it with Scripture. So rejection number four under this header.

Says.

So this this is the state of the Arminian statement the Arminian belief. Um that the unregenerate man is not really or utterly dead in sin nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life and offer the sacrifice of a Contrite and broken spirit which is pleasing to God.

So that would be the statement which is being rejected and it is rejected on these grounds. For these are contrary to the express testimony of Scripture quote. Who were dead in their trespasses and sin even when we were dead in sins Ephesians 2 1 and 5.

And every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually Genesis 6 5. And. For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth generation Genesis 8 21.

Yeah.

And then there We we continue just you know for sake of completeness moreover To hunger and thirst after deliverance from misery and after life and to offer unto God. The sacrifice of a broken spirit is peculiar to the regenerate and to those that are called blessed.

Creating in me a clean create in me a clean heart. Oh God and renew a right spirit within me Then shalt thou be pleased with me or with the sacrifices of righteousness with burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings.

Then shall they offer bollocks upon their altar Psalms 51 10 to 19. And Then finally blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled Matthew 5 6.

Yeah, if you would.

We're good with that, all right. Technical difficulties are fun.

I'll try to find a good technical difficulty. So I'll be screened there.

So I am so that being so that being the the argument in point, you know addressing those two issues. Just in that one rejection and the canons of dork. That we are literally in and and quite plainly expressed as being dead in our sin.

Dead in our trespasses. There are other scriptures which describe us as the enemies of God. So there is. There is a a wealth of Scripture on that. Yeah.

And and it's in the the root it all traces back in Genesis chapter 3. The scripture says the serpent was more crafty than any beasts of the field the Lord God had made. He said to the woman did God actually say you shall not eat of any tree in the garden and The woman said to the serpent we may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden.

But God said you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden. Neither shall you touch it lest you die. But the serpent said to the woman you will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food. And it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was desired to make one wise. She took of its fruit and ate and she also gave to her husband who was with her and he ate.

Then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves Aprons or loincloths and they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.

And the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man. And he said where are you? And he said I heard the sound of you in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself.

He said who told you that you were naked. Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? The man said the woman whom you gave him to be with me. She gave me the fruit of the tree and I excuse making.

Right. They don't work then the Lord God said to the woman What is that that you have done. And the woman said the serpent deceived me and I ate and the Lord God said to the serpent because you have done this cursed.

Are you above all animals and above all beasts of the field and on your belly you shall go and dust shall you eat all? The days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman between your offspring and her offspring.

He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel. So the root of the problem goes back to the garden. This is the doctrine of original sin. Mm-hmm, and really this is the doctrine of original sin is the doctrine that is denied.

With pull in Pelagian ism, right?

Right, and that is one of those other One of those other points which we we see less of in modern Arminian ism. And that's it, you know again the thing to keep to keep in mind that modern Arminians are not You know first-generation Arminians because that matter of original sin was brought up and Evaluated within the Senate of Dort there are points there are articles and rejections On that in fact that that is yeah, I believe that's the first.

Yeah, the first rejection in this in this header is addressing the fact that the that the the Arminians Denied original sin. Yeah, because if you can deny original sin, then you're then you're good, right?

Because then it's not it's not your it's not your fault. It's it's the woman who you know, and I and I love that that quick Double blame that that Adam does it's not just that he blames Eve the woman he blames God, too.

Yeah, the woman you gave me, you know, it's like it's not my fault. You gave me a defective woman. I'm like, wow, there you go. Let's blame God for your sin. But yeah an article to you know addresses that It Specifically man after the fall begat children in his own likeness a corrupt stock Produced a corrupt offspring.

Hence all the posterity of Adam Christ only accepted have derived corruption from their original parent not by imitation as the Pelagians of old asserted but by progeny of a vicious nature. And so again and and we have we have this continuously stupid debate within psychology.

Between nature versus nurture which you know more reasons why I don't like Psychology is that they reject all of scripture and then try to solve the soul on their own. But anyway, that's a whole different topic.

But that idea of nature versus nurture is a Pelagian argument that we are not by nature evil. We learn it we imitate evil, you know, it almost to say that we are taught evil and Augustin writes beautifully about Infants and how you can see evil even at infancy.

And one of his and I'll paraphrase as I always do with Augustin because he's he's he's too good for me to quote directly, um, but he even wrote that, you know as an infant. It is not that I didn't grab something that I wanted but was not my own.

Because I did not have envy but because I lacked the strength in my arms to do so, you know. And it is one of those you can see jealousy even in infants. Um, no one teaches us how to be evil.

That's the truth. That is.

The truth.

Sorry, I had a Little apps there for just a moment there. I was. It's like I was processing everything that you said, what are we talking about?

Don't worry. I don't process what I say either. I just speak.

But I was just trying to I was trying to think with it there, too. So. So with the the the converse of total depravity, which is Pelagianism right in a nutshell. Give us kind of a succinct maybe two or three minute kind of a summary of The really it was a battle for the sufficiency of Scripture, right between Augustin and Pelagian, correct, right, right.

So, um.

And and the the fun part of history is that Pelagius denied that he was the one Who kind of started what then took on his his name, um, though and people. Critics of Augustin attributed it to being Augustin that Augustin blamed if you will Pelagius for for these beliefs, but he didn't really um, you know believe that so to speak.

But I'll I'll go with my man Augustin on this one. So so the dispute as as in good, you know Augustinian fashion. Everything that he wrote was really a wonderful form of apologetics and he he just went at everything beautifully.

But one of the issues was between him and Pelagius and the main argument between the two was again on the natural state of man because of the fall and.

So.

And that was you know, that whole point to which one of one of Augustine's other famous quotes Pelagius hated. Which you know was when Augustine said? You know, give us give us all that you will and ask of us all that you give, you know to that effect saying that The Lord will ask the Lord will provide exactly what he then asks of us.

Meaning that we have nothing to give but we first receive and then we give back unto the Lord. Really putting into that which bothered Pelagius on this because Pelagius believed we have something good already to offer Before receiving from God that there is some inherent righteousness within man to which Augustine outright and correctly refused and refuted.

And so that was really one of your you your early debates and.

So.

Pelagianism and Orthodox Christianity have existed within the the Christian Church for I Mean for most of most of her history. So this is this is nothing new.

At all.

It's just gone into much finer detail because of the the cannons of Dort there was and the the because of Arminius. And then subsequently the cannons of Dort it brought a lot of clarity to these points.

But the the general debate has been has been raging for some time. Yeah, and it's continued to this day.

Still yet continues. This is exactly why we need to continue to stick to the scriptures Themselves, so there is always a progression. Would you say Greg that there is always a progression?

So.

People when they find out that the Pelagian view will will say well, I don't want to go that far Right and say that man is born Neutral because that's basically what Pelagius taught right a neutral state where you basically tip one way or the other once you Get a certain age.

It's almost as if you can grow into sin. Mm-hmm. But like you said, there's no growing into sin where we're born sinners. These people clearly do not have children. Exactly exactly. But so the progression is then.

To say well, I won't say that we're born neutral. I'll say that we're mostly good in some bad. Therefore that little bit of goodness within us is what makes us Be able to respond savingly to God now. There's a term for what I just described.

What is that term?

Right. Um, well in that that later becomes known as prevenient grace.

So.

Because Full-on Pelagian ism is heresy. I mean straight up you then had this sort of drift to what is known as semi Pelagian ism which so rather than say man is Fully good and righteous and then becomes corrupt or evil you can say well man is partially good.

You know partially evil whatever whatever mixture you want in there. Um, so you have semi Pelagian ism. Which is sure. We're evil and corrupt, but they're still good enough in us to to you know. Uh to get saved if you will to choose to choose to elect Jesus King um, and then the but the the fancy and later philosophical term mind you it's not Theological concept it is a philosophical concept is Prevenient grace.

It's a way Really? It's a way for Armenians to still be able to affirm God's grace as necessity for salvation. So it's a way to use the word grace But have a different meaning ascribed to it. And so that's why most Armenians will Genuinely and honestly as far as they understand the terms to be say well, of course We are saved by grace through faith grace is necessary.

Um.

But they're not speaking of orthodox biblical grace. They're speaking of prevenient grace and so prevenient grace is this measure of grace Given to all men by god enabling them to choose.

Christ.

So it's it's it's just enough. It's a measure of faith given To enable them to choose God. So yeah, it's which is not only problematic Biblically, but problematic even just logically. Um, there are there are still a whole host of problems with.

Prevenient grace. Yeah cart before the horse, right? So I mean in as far as a total depravity goes I mean really that's the that's the one Doctrine really that both and when we use again, we we want to.

Um.

Make a uh a distinction and make it clear. That when we say that's that's the an idea and a terminology that typically the arminian has. Uh, and then we'll talk about a calvinistic view when we're talking about the calvinistic view.

Again, we want to make this clear. Calvin did not come up and invent these doctrines. Augustine did not invent these doctrines. These are the doctrines taught in the scriptures uh spurgeon Said at one point in his in his lifetime.

He said when when I say Calvinism calvinism is simply a nickname for the gospel. Because it it goes back it's it's the apostolic truth taught by the apostles it's the historical truth that we see from beginning to end.

In the 66 books of the old and the new testament. So when we talk about reformed theology, we are not uh, we we are not talking about a systematic theology. Created by augustine by calvin by spurgeon by any of the great men of god throughout church history.

But we are simply referring to the word of god itself, right?

Right, exactly. And and that is um. And and that's really one of those points. It's it's the summary of whoever has scripture wins. Um and with the reformed and and it's one of those I i'm I'm, not of the reformed Traditions because I like them.

Um, though I do absolutely like them, uh, but there is of course a danger and even having tradition become an idol. Yeah.

Um.

The reason why i'm reformed is because the reformed tradition Can read through scripture Plainly and in context with as with with very little issue.

Um.

When you start to Qualify scripture as you read it Then there's a problem. Um, if you can't just read The whole book of john the the book of ephesians the book of galatians or romans when you can't just read through these Without having to try to qualify.

Well, it might it doesn't really mean that it's there's this and you know. And all of this like you're it's it's falling apart. Um and you see that when you have You know, it's like have have an arminian preacher just preach through romans 8 through 11 quite honestly.

Um, there'll be a lot of there'll be a lot of footnotes on on those sermons um, you know a lot of caveats, uh to the point where some people even try to like Say, well, it would be better if you actually read it this part first and then these other scriptures i'm like did you just rearrange?

Again i'm like did really did is that your argument is to rearrange it? Um,.

So.

But when you when you approach scripture from the reformed, you know, the reformed understanding of it. You you read it as it is you read it. You know the verse in context of the chapter and the chapter in context of the book in the book in context of the entirety.

Of scripture. Yeah, um and the reformed tradition can do that. Uh quite well.

Um.

You know as opposed to other more modern Concepts which which arguably fall apart very quickly.

So.

So this is uh, this likely this episode, uh, Is a shorter one, but it is it is short for the reason that it is so direct. The real challenges the real depths that we need to that we will be plumbing In the scriptures as we move along throughout the doctrines of grace will be These next ones that we that we tackle which will be unconditional election.

Everybody everybody hates that. Again if you want to be thinking ahead on that, uh, it can be called Sovereign election. That map that's a much more palatable term with the same truth packs the same punch.

It still states the same thing that god sovereignly chooses. And elects those whom he has determined from whom the father has given him from all eternity. So we'll get into that. Any closing remarks greg that you'd like to add on the doctrine of gravity.

Um on the doctrine of total depravity. Yeah, because we mentioned prevenient grace which plays a role with total depravity. Um, but yeah, I guess really the the fleshing out of that comes in.

Um.

Well, I mean I can I I can do just a couple more points on it since the the main header of the arminian issue was on the will of man. Um and the will of man assuming that the will of man. Has you know some righteousness or then by by prevenient grace?

Um and to not just say oh there are problems with it and then gloss over and kind of carry on um. But sort of to summarize a couple of the problems with prevenient grace.

Um.

That and the the canons of dor bring this up and I thought it was a one of them being a very fantastic point that if If salvation is dependent upon human will human choice then There is a possibility that no one would have Chosen to be saved which means the death of christ would have been for nothing.

Um, so the which which is why historically.

Um.

The the protestants the reformed christians, um had no problem branding arminians as heretics. Uh, we are a lot less zealous on that now. But I think that's because the reformed are in the minority and it's difficult to call almost every christian, you know a heretic.

Um.

When when you're the minority, you know, it's it's hard when you when you just want to just you'd be like, you know. What everybody's a heretic? Um, so I but but they had no problem. I I mean, you know the reformed they had so for you know.

What about 300 years of reformed history? There was no problem saying well, yeah, of course arminianism's heresy. It's semi-palagianism. That's absolutely heresy. Um to to say that god would have done something that would have accomplished.

Nothing is to lie about the nature of god. Um also you know also to say you hit the finally that that point of If prevenient grace enables a man to be saved Then why are some saved and others not? Because Either the blame lays with god.

God did not give them enough faith. God did not Uh ordain the circumstances in just the right way for everyone to be saved. So that would be to say that god either didn't know how much faith to give. Which would be to reject the omniscience of god, which even arminians would wouldn't do.

Um, so either god did not know how much faith or what conditions would be necessary. But since arminians won't even go there then god did know. So then did he just not give enough faith is the failing with god or did god know how to?

Arrange the circumstances. But then chose not to so then still that is god's fault. Um, but if you're not willing to you know to say that about god.

Then.

It must be Upon the individual and now no matter how you want to try to dodge it. You are now entering into merit-based salvation, correct? Which the apostle paul writes explicitly against says we are not saved by our own merit.

Amen. Um, because why do some choose and others do not. Why do some reject christ and others choose christ. What makes you know, what makes them? Is it. Is it is it education? Is it uh, you know some capability?

Um, is it the amount of money that they have which which is very you know. Depending on what church you go to that might be the excuse given. Um, Only the rich get saved which which is directly contrary to what christ said.

Um.

So he said something to the. What was that? It's easier for the camel to go through through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Right, you know mega churches shouldn't exist. Um, so but the uh. You know you you end up in that issue of if it's up to man. Why then do some and not others? Um unless and you know, because then then I mean.

Best case scenario you're now engaging in arrogance. I was good enough to choose christ. I figured it out um, and then the. One area that you can kind of go but at that point you might as well hop the fence into calvinism.

If you say that no matter the amount of faith or circumstances someone was always going to choose to reject christ. Like that sounds a lot like predestination, uh, if they were always going to reject christ.

Um, but then and this is so not only is it just plagianism right out but the destruction it then causes to the church is. Because then men try to answer that question. Well, why do some. Well, let's figure that out.

Let's solve that problem and then you end up with. The the the preacher wasn't charismatic enough, you know, you know, the the worship service wasn't engaging enough. And so we need the you know. Slick haircut well built good voice.

Look how charismatic I am. You know i'm gonna make this a a a very palpable sermon. You know not a lot of scripture because people get bored with that and you know. And we're gonna have we're gonna have our worship leader because apparently the pastor's not the leader of worship.

Which just blows my mind which he is right. We're gonna have the worship leader back there playing a soft thing on the piano set the mood dim the lighting. I mean you you get into this. Formula formula the formula of trying to formulate.

Thank you of trying to get people saved. And then we pervert and we twist the bride of christ true to try to. You know to win people over.

Um.

And of course the other extreme is yelling at people on the on the street corner to get them saved. Although that one actually has far more biblical backing than the yes than the than the mega church.

There's a time and a place to yell at people to repent for the kingdom is nigh. Um, i straight preach. So yes, I oh, no, i'm i am all for it. I am all for it. Um, I love that. So we we need more soapbox preachers.

Um, As long as you as long in in as your declaration of you're all on your way to hell Is because you don't want people to go there. Yeah, um, then then then you're doing it, right. Quick side note. Yeah.

On that last night I listened to a sermon by josh bass from uh, the G3 conference the most recent one there in there in georgia but he. He shared the testimony of being at a conference years and years ago uh where.