A Biblical Debate : Total Depravity (CALVINISM)

Hello again! Thanks for the detailed rebuttal, I will address your remarks in the format below. Rebuttal #1 | Biblical Proof-texting Rebuttal #2 | Mischaracterization of Partial Depravity Rebuttal #3 | Predestination and Election Rebuttal #1 | Biblical Proof-texting In my opponent’s rebuttal he has charged me with largely ignoring his arguments, which of course was only the case because I was presenting my own argument. Indeed, in my initial argument I went into a detailed exegesis of the passages considering their textual context and historical context. My opponent has unfortunately assumed that the passages he quoted supports his position at face value, I will demonstrate with a few examples that this is not the case. “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”[1] In the context of this passage, Jesus had just criticized the Pharisee’s for their commitment to human-made commands and traditions over the true works of god, which is love. This passage reveals their hypocrisy while addressing the ritual purity laws as pertaining to what foods they can eat. Jesus is saying that it isn’t the food that is consumed which makes a person unclean or defiled, it is rather that which comes out of a person, then details various sins. Let us be clear on this matter, Partial Depravity does not say that humans are not evil, or that they aren’t responsible for their evil decisions. This text fits perfectly with an Arminian understanding of Depravity, and it does not in any way support my opponent’s position of Total Depravity as it relates to the differences in the positions of this debate. “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”[2] Beginning in v.1 we have the author addressing the ills of the “Circumcision Party,” which pertains to a 1st and 2nd Century debate in Christianity on whether or not Christians had to become Jews by circumcision and obedience to works of the Law. His remarks continue to address this party, when in v.15 he regards them much the same was as Jesus does, “defiled.” Which is a term indicative of being ritually unclean per the Mosaic Purity Laws, and is regarded as defiled on the same basis as Jesus claims, by their actions. This text is proof-texted by my opponent to try to refer to all people, when in reality it addresses a specific group. Even if one considers it as a reference to all mankind, it still does not highlight a difference between Partial Depravity and Total Depravity. Rebuttal #2 | Mischaracterization of Partial Depravity The key point of my rebuttal is to highlight the fact that in no way has my opponent actually addressed the heart of my argument. He has in fact mischaracterized my argument when he said, “Partial Depravity states that "human will is free and has the power to yield to the influence of the Spirit.” My opponent does not defend this claim and takes my side ironically.” Ironically, my opponent has conveniently left out the main portion of the definition that my position hinges on. Let’s examine the definition again, with the important portion bolded. “Humanity is depraved but still able to seek God. We are fallen and tainted by sin but not to the extent that we cannot chose to come to God and accept salvation, with the help of prevenient grace from God. Given such grace, human will is free and has the power to yield to the influence of the Spirit.”[3] It appears that what he has actually been criticizing is the position of pelagianism, when in fact the link he quoted this from is on Arminianism which is a reformation position with a doctrine of Depravity almost on par with Calvinists. It fully acknowledges the necessity of grace, in the free choice of the individual to accept or decline salvation through the proclamation of the gospel. As stated in the previous argument, Lydia did not have her heart regenerated, she simply was made to be more attentive to listen to what Paul was saying. Rebuttal #3 | Predestination and Election As noted in my original argument, this debate is ultimately about the issue of Election, and Total Depravity is the foundation for this doctrine in the Calvinistic Systematic Theology. Since mankind is unable to choose god within the Calvinist framework, it is necessary for there to be an irresistible act of the Holy Spirit to cause that individual to be regenerated and therefore accept the gospel and be saved. This then informs the rest of the system, as it implies that only certain individuals are actually saved. Again my opponent quotes Scriptures passages that he assumes supports his position, and alludes to the Greek definition of “predestined,” yet doesn’t understand that this still doesn’t demonstrate that individuals are predestined to salvation from all time. This debate is not a great format for making a detailed defense of Arminianism, but I think it is worthwhile to give a counter example of Corporate Election as juxtaposed against this Calvinist form of Election. Corporate Election, is the doctrine that asserts that god has elected not individuals, but he has chosen a people for his possession out of all the peoples of the earth. That in the first Covenant he had done this with the Jewish people through the Covenant Representatives of Abraham and his sons. This has now been fulfilled if not superseded by the Covenant represented in the person of Jesus, and all who belong to Jesus are participators in that Covenant and heirs of the promises of god. The argument presented by Calvinists ignore the issue of the inclusion of the Gentiles as central to Paul’s Gentile missionary journeys, and read these justifications of his mission as texts on individual salvation. Rather, Paul argues that it was always god’s intention to make a way for the Gentiles via the disobedience of the Jews, which in a strange way was all about making the Jews jealous as well. Paul summarizes it this way in the Epistle of Romans. “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”[4] I await my opponent’s rebuttal and conclusion. [1] Mark 7:21-23 (ESV) [2] Titus 1:15-16 (ESV) [3] http://www.gotquestions.org... [4] Romans 11:32 (ESV)