tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post269814683318521002..comments2022-11-27T16:19:35.248-05:00Comments on The Biblicist Cajoneador: Total DepravityGary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)http://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-33940623213209199872009-02-04T17:17:00.000-05:002009-02-04T17:17:00.000-05:00Gabe, thanks for the kind words and the rational t...Gabe, thanks for the kind words and the rational thoughts, put no doubt far more cogently than I could have. However, I question whether you have made my point for me. According to wikipedia, petitio principii was defined by Aristotle as "... If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue."<BR/><BR/>My point was that the conclusion and what you call point 3/3a are essentially the same proposition: that unregenerate man is not totally depraved. Now, there may in fact be an equivocation here between "totally depraved" and "significantly depraved." But since 3 is used in your proof, then it seems to me that "significantly" must be the same as the "totally" in the conclusion. Thus, I think this is a petitio.<BR/><BR/>Now, as you say, there are also grounds to argue with other premises - in particular premise #2. You're right, that is a horse of a different color.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stretching my thoughts about logic - it's been awhile. (Perhaps I am rusty? I don't think so - but I've been unpleasantly surprised before.)Gary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-30388072842663541052009-02-04T16:34:00.000-05:002009-02-04T16:34:00.000-05:00Thanks for putting together a very conciliatory an...Thanks for putting together a very conciliatory and rational argument forward. It is, unfortunately a rare thing to have rational and peaceful and polite discourse. However, I wouldn't be posting if I only agreed 8-). I do have to disagree with one statement you made. You said, "However, just you don't judge a football game according to the rules of baseball, you don't take an Arminian assumption and use it to judge Calvinism...Lewis is begging the question in a subtle, unstated way. The doctrine does indeed mean that sin affects every part of us, including our moral judgments. However, Lewis judges the doctrine based on a synergistic understanding of salvation:" That is not what I see in his quote at all. I don't see him judging total depravity based on prior assumptions. I see him questioning the veracity of total depravity on purely logical grounds. He says, as you so rightly quoted, "I disbelieve that doctrine partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved..." This is FAR from question begging. Quite the contrary, this is a valid logical rebuttal that is asserting that if the doctrine of total depravity were true, we would be too depraved to know we were depraved...thus it is logically self refuting. Formally speaking, the fallacy of question begging has the following structure (P and Q are propositions):<BR/><BR/> 1. Q only if P.<BR/> 2. P.<BR/> 3. Therefore, Q.<BR/> 4. (unspoken) P only if Q.<BR/><BR/>Lewis is not making this error. His understanding of soteriology actually has nothing to do with his logical attack on total depravity. His argument may be spelled out formally as follows...<BR/> <BR/> 1. Total Depravity so significantly warps the mind that apart from God's intervention, we are not able to rightly think about God. <BR/> 2. If we were so significantly depraved, we would not be able to judge that we were so significantly depraved. <BR/> 3. We do, in fact, know that we are significantly depraved. <BR/> 3a. In fact, many self professed non-Christians are very aware of this significant depravity.<BR/> 4. THEREFORE, our depravity must not be total.<BR/><BR/>You may argue with any of the premises...indeed I have intentionally left much room to do so. However, to accuse him of question begging is simply not accurate in this instance. <BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work and the good thinking. May God bless us all as we try to unravel the mysteries of His grace.Gabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539167754815579945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-4701100981690107242008-08-18T20:23:00.000-04:002008-08-18T20:23:00.000-04:00No, of course you're correct that Arminians have a...No, of course you're correct that Arminians have a form of Total Depravity, as laid out in article IV of the articles of remonstrance. However, to say we cannot respond on our own naturally, but then to say God has made it so that any of us CAN NOW respond on our own, seems to me a distinction without a difference. Why bother talking about total depravity if God has negated it for all people, elect or not?Gary Bisaga (aka fool4jesus)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16238954438323198854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-40409442246364158652008-08-18T20:00:00.000-04:002008-08-18T20:00:00.000-04:00I think it is important to remember that the Armin...I think it is important to remember that the Arminian view doesn't reject the doctrine of Total Depravity. In our natural state we are unable to do any good. However, by God's Prevenient Grace we are enabled (though not forced) to respond to God in faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35503642.post-56198957322687069482008-07-02T08:36:00.000-04:002008-07-02T08:36:00.000-04:00Formulated thus...all people by their own facultie...Formulated thus...<BR/><BR/><I>all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures</I><BR/><BR/>...it would seem that the doctrine teaches that salvation follows choosing to follow God but that the choice itself is impossible. This does not resonate with my experience nor with my understanding of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Instead the choice is something we <I>must</I> do, it is the stretching out of our hands for help, the calling on the name of the Lord. This step is volitional but does not constitute salvation. Salvation, the new life, is the gift which the Father then pours out. In His faithfulness rejects no one who does call out. This faithfulness might lead the convert to believe he or she chose salvation or accomplished it themselves, but this is just a silly mistake and we don't need something as radical as Total Depravity to counter it.<BR/><BR/>God, as viewed by a TD proponent saves people arbitrarily whilst condemning others to the fires of Hell - surely a deficient view of Him who <I>is</I> Justice and Love. A TD proponent must surely deny any sort of personal will and view the deeds of sinners as morally neutral and essentially unavoidable and pre-determined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com