Comments on: Predestination Background – Utter Inability

By: Bryce

Bryce — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:31:26 +0000

Lori, ummmmm…..

I don’t think the distinction between moral perfection and innocence is really necessary at this point. My goal in this post was to demonstrate the necessity of predestination because of our utter inability. This holds true regardless of which view of perfection you take. There is a perfectly biblical answer to this questions, but it gets us into the area of cosmic predestination, which I’m trying to avoid at this point. (This is actually the reason I used the phrase ‘utter inability’ instead of ‘total depravity’. Utter inability highlights the functional aspect or our fallenness, whereas total depravity is more categorical. I’m looking at predestination as it relates to salvation, so I’m sticking to the functional aspect here.)

I don’t want to brush off your question, feel free to send me an email if you want to discuss further. But I’d prefer not to get into it here for the time being.

By: Lori

Lori — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:36:42 +0000

I think you should clarify at the beginning what you mean by Adam and Eve were perfect. Were they morally perfect, or simply morally innocent? If they were perfect like God, where did the sin come from if not perfect free will? Or did they still have the capacity to sin (unlike God) which lead to their ability to choose wrong instead of right?

That is the very first important issue with total depravity. Why did Adam and Eve sin if they were perfect? And did God create them for this purpose? Because proving predestination rests on the answer.

(I find this is where discussions with Arminians becomes difficult.)

By: Bryce

Bryce — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:12 +0000

Thanks for the comments Katie. Yes, it is a bit more complicated than what I said, but I think it’s a debatable point. It really depends on how you define Arminianism, which is not as straightforward as one might think. Is Arminianism what James Arminius believed, or his immediate followers, or those who call themselves Arminians today, or those who believe most of what any of these other groups believe? The word is commonly used of any of these groups, and while they’re beliefs are not entirely antithetical, neither are they identical on every point. So, yeah, it’s not entirely straightforward, but if you use both ‘Calvinism’ and ‘Arminianism’ in the broadest sense, then for the most part the distinction it holds pretty well.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:48:22 +0000

I’m still with you! I think I’m following but don’t have much (anything) intelligent to say on the topic.

And just a nitpicky point: you say that “Arminians [are] (those who aren’t Calvinists)” but not all non-Calvinists are Arminians.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:28:21 +0000

As a follow up, consider these (tongue and cheeck) questions and answers from The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism:

Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personallordandsaviour.
Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner’s Prayer in my own words.
Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

Sometimes I wonder if satire isn’t more convincing than a well-reasoned argument.