Though not existing until (almost) 100 years after the Protestant Reformation began, the theological system established at the Synod of Dort[1] – otherwise known as the Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, the five points of Calvinism, or the acronym, T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints) serves as an accurate summary of arguably the Reformation’s most guarded and novel belief: monergism (God is the only One working/acting in our salvation from its beginning until its end)[2]. The purpose of this study wb to re-consider the 5 Points of Calvinism and the monergistic view of salvation it presents through re-examining those biblical texts used to support it along w/the rest of the biblical witness to determine if this view is indeed the gospel of how God saves sinners[3].

TOTAL DEPRAVITY = We are completely unable to repent, believe in Christ and be faithful to God’s commands. God must give repentance and faith to us and produce faithfulness for us (thru His work in us – i.e. regeneration/new birth)
What the Bible actually teaches/reveals:

MORAL ABILITY

Though sin has severely affected us, it has not stripped us of our morality – or moral ability before God and others. We can – and therefore are expected to – repent of our sin, respond in faith to the gospel of Christ and live faithfully to God’s commands. Countless texts in the Scripture make clear that mankind’s will is still free enough to establish both his culpability and God’s right to judge him when he fails (we are “w/o excuse” – e.g. Rom 1:18-21 w/2:2, 3:1-8). Equally evident from the Bible, is God’s genuine displeasure when people continue in their rebellion and His desire to see them turn and follow Him (Eze 18:23, 33:11; Deu 30:19-20; Rom 2:4; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 3:9). Both attributes equally imply our ability to repent, believe and be faithful to His commands. Finally, God confirms this ability by explicitly stating that we can obey His commands (Deu 30:11-14). As additional support, the early church rejected the thinking promoted by the doctrine of total depravity (e.g. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Melito, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Methodius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom – even Augustine, the coveted saint of the Calvinistic Reformers)[4].

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
2.1. What the doctrine teaches:

Before God created the universe, He chose/elected specific persons to be the recipients of His salvation based/conditioned upon nothing He saw or knew about those individuals as to their moral value or potential or because He possessed some prior obligation to them, but instead based solely on His free choice and sovereign grace. As part of God’s unconditional election of some to salvation, He also determined to provide those individuals with the necessary repentance, faith and faithfulness thus eliminating the obstacle created by the prior doctrine of Total Depravity (inability to repent, believe and faithfully obey) and guaranteeing their future residence into heaven.

2.2. The problem with this doctrine:

The Bible does NOT teach that God – before creating the universe, chose/elected specific persons to be the recipients of His salvation. Nor do the Scriptures teach that such election is unconditional – or that once saved, they are guaranteed to one day reside in heaven. In stark contrast, the picture painted by God’ Word reveals the following to be the true doctrine of election:

2.2.1. God election is always based/condition upon the behavior He saw in someone.

God’s election/choice as to who will receive salvation is instead always based/conditioned on the past/present actions of that individual or the actions of someone else God designates to be their federal head (i.e. personal representative).

For example:

2.2.1.1. God’s election of Noah was conditioned upon the righteous behavior He witnessed in Noah

(Gen 6:5 – 9, 11-13 w/18a; Gen 6:22 w/7:1).

2.2.1.2. God’s election of Noah’s household was also conditioned upon the righteous behavior of Noah (Gen 6:18; 1Pe 3:20-21). 2.2.1.3. God’s election of Abe was conditioned upon the righteous behavior He witnessed in Abe (Gen 15:1-21; See also Neh 9:8).

2.2.1.4. Isaac/Jacob/Israel’s elections were also conditioned upon Abe (Gen 17:1-8 w/21 w/22:16-18 w/26:1-5 w/28:10-15 w/Deu 4:31, 7:6-8; Rom 11:28).

2.2.1.5. The election to salvation of New Covenant saints or the Church – most especially Gentiles, is conditioned upon the righteous behavior of Christ (Eph 1:1-11).

2.2.1.6. God’s election (personally/individually) was conditioned upon either our parents’ or our own behavior (Ezr 8:22; Rom 2:6-8; Act 10:34-35, 13:47-48; 1Ti 1:12-13; Act 2:39 w/Gen 17:7-13; 1Co 7:14; e.g. Act 8:26-36; Act 16:6-10; See also Joh 4:23; Mat 9:37-38, 10:12-14; Isa 56:1-5).

2.2.2. God’s foreknowledge is also a reference to someone’s behavior as the condition of their election.

A popular argument w/in Calvinist circles is that the Greek word (προγινώσκω) translated as “foreknew” in (Rom 8:29) refers to God’s prior choice/election of individuals to salvation (meaning before their actions – or even existence, and therefore unconditional) rather than what that word would normally indicate (as demonstrated elsewhere in the New Testament), which is prior knowledge (Act 26:5; 1Pe 1:20; 2Pe 3:17). This however is its meaning in this text as well. It refers to God’s prior knowledge as to our behavior as the basis (or condition) of God’s choice/election. This interpretation not only fits nicely w/the immediate context or Paul’s conversation on God’s guidance and purpose for His elect, but is confirmed when the word is used again in the final chapter of this discussion in chapter 11 (See Rom 11:1-4) = Those God chooses/elects to be the remnant are those who demonstrate acts of faithfulness as it was in the time of Elijah (1Ki 19:10 w/18).

2.2.3. John 1:13 teaches the condition of spiritual birth to be identified as the elect.

Though often used to support unconditional election, the context surrounding these verses reveal them to be teaching the opposite. (Joh 1:11-13) = Those that God now chooses to become His children or elect, is no longer based (or conditioned) upon bloodline (i.e. you are a Jew – v11), nor the fact that such individuals had received the old covenant signs in their flesh (what he means by “the will of the flesh” – Gen 17:11-13). Such privilege has been removed due to the Jews rejection of Jesus (again v11). Becoming “the children of God” is instead the “right” given by God “to all who did receive Him” (i.e. Christ), to those “who believed in His name.” IOW: The new condition for becoming one of God’s elect sons or daughters is spiritual birth (being “born…of God”) through belief in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ (Joh 3:1-16). This condition also eliminates the idea that people can be saved simply b/c they desire to be (what Paul means by “the will of man”).

[1] The Synod of Dort held in Dordrecht, Holland from 1618-1619, consisted of 154 meetings and lasted seven months. Theologians and secular authorities from Germany, Switzerland and England were brought together to examine 5 doctrines made popular by the late seminary professor, Jacobus Arminius. The synod – or council, ultimately disagreed with Arminius’ position and in response, crafted 5 counter-points or doctrines that later became known as the “five points of Calvinism” in respect to late reformer, John Calvin.

[2] Monergism is in contrast to what was held in church history prior to that – i.e. synergism, man cooperating w/God (i.e. working/acting together w/God) in the process of his salvation.

[3] The reason I use the words “re-consider” and “re-examine” is b/c Calvinism has been – in whole or part, the conviction of myself and the tea...

Though not existing until (almost) 100 years after the Protestant Reformation began, the theological system established at the Synod of Dort[1] – otherwise known as the Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, the five points of Calvinism, or the acronym, T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints) serves as an accurate summary of arguably the Reformation’s most guarded and novel belief: monergism (God is the only One working/acting in our salvation from its beginning until its end)[2]. The purpose of this study wb to re-consider the 5 Points of Calvinism and the monergistic view of salvation it presents through re-examining those biblical texts used to support it along w/the rest of the biblical witness to determine if this view is indeed the gospel of how God saves sinners[3].

TOTAL DEPRAVITY = We are completely unable to repent, believe in Christ and be faithful to God’s commands. God must give repentance and faith to us and produce faithfulness for us (thru His work in us – i.e. regeneration/new birth)
What the Bible actually teaches/reveals:

MORAL ABILITY

Though sin has severely affected us, it has not stripped us of our morality – or moral ability before God and others. We can – and therefore are expected to – repent of our sin, respond in faith to the gospel of Christ and live faithfully to God’s commands. Countless texts in the Scripture make clear that mankind’s will is still free enough to establish both his culpability and God’s right to judge him when he fails (we are “w/o excuse” – e.g. Rom 1:18-21 w/2:2, 3:1-8). Equally evident from the Bible, is God’s genuine displeasure when people continue in their rebellion and His desire to see them turn and follow Him (Eze 18:23, 33:11; Deu 30:19-20; Rom 2:4; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 3:9). Both attributes equally imply our ability to repent, believe and be faithful to His commands. Finally, God confirms this ability by explicitly stating that we can obey His commands (Deu 30:11-14). As additional support, the early church rejected the thinking promoted by the doctrine of total depravity (e.g. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Melito, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Methodius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom).

“Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” – Clement of Alexandria

 “He [God] has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in man a free choice of will… God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards.” – Augustine (adopted saint of the Calvinistic Reformers).

“Given Calvinism’s long and formative influence on the western world, it would be both irrational and irresponsible not to assume there is a strong causal connection between the doctrine of Total Depravity (or more accurately, “Total Inability”) and the victim mentality so prevalent today. The self-destruction created by these false inabilities are the direct opposite of (and therefore stand opposed to) God’s justice since through its practice (justice), mankind’s ability is acknowledged and empowered. ” – My (RSJ) opinion 

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
2.1. What the doctrine teaches:

Before God created the universe, He chose/elected specific persons to be the recipients of His salvation based/conditioned upon nothing He saw or knew about those individuals as to their moral value or potential or because He possessed some prior obligation to them, but instead based solely on His free choice and sovereign grace. As part of God’s unconditional election of some to salvation, He also determined to provide those individuals with the necessary repentance, faith and faithfulness thus eliminating the obstacle created by the prior doctrine of Total Depravity (inability to repent, believe and faithfully obey) and guaranteeing their future residence into heaven.

2.2. The problem with this doctrine:

The Bible does NOT teach that God – before creating the universe, chose/elected specific persons to be the recipients of His salvation. Nor do the Scriptures teach that such election is unconditional – or that once saved, they are guaranteed to one day reside in heaven. In stark contrast, the picture painted by God’ Word reveals the following to be the true doctrine of election:

2.2.1. God election is always based/condition upon the behavior He saw in someone.

God’s election/choice as to who will receive salvation is instead always based/conditioned on the past/present actions of that individual or the actions of someone else God designates to be their federal head (i.e. personal representative).

For example:

2.2.1.1. God’s election of Noah was conditioned upon the righteous behavior He witnessed in Noah.

(Gen 6:5 – 9, 11-13 w/18a) = God’s election/choice to extend “favor” or “establish covenant” – i.e. to save Noah from His coming judgment against sin was due to/conditioned upon the fact that Noah was a “righteous man, blameless in his generation”, a man who “walked with God” and “did all that God commanded him.” Should there be any doubt to the conditional nature of the previous statements, the last verse of chapter 6 and first of chapter seven make it abundantly clear (Gen 6:22 w/7:1 – “Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.”)[4].

2.2.1.2. God’s election of Noah’s household was also conditioned upon the righteous behavior of Noah.

The fact that God chose to save (from the coming flood) not only Noah but his entire household implies that they (too) benefited from Noah’s righteous behavior. IOW: that they were included in the covenant God made w/Noah. It sb noted that the term “ark” used to refer to the boat built by Noah is the same word used when speaking of the ark of the covenant – the place where the Book of the Covenant resided and where the sacrifice for atonement was made. Additionally, the ark was carried into battle ensuring the Israelites’ success. It represented the place of God’s saving power. To be in the presence of one of God’s arks meant you were in the place of salvation – i.e. that you existed in a saving covenant relationship w/Him. Hence the reason God’s instruction to take Noah’s family into the ark (and through it save them from the flood) immediately follows His words regarding the covenant (see again Gen 6:18 = coming into covenant w/God is what gave them access to His ark of salvation). For further support in regard to viewing Noah’s ark as a soteriological sign – or symbol of saving covenant relationship see (1Pe 3:20-21) = Like Noah’s family who were saved thru the waters by the ark which rose above their deathly threat, we too are saved thru the waters by the archetype [literally, ark-type] of Jesus who also rose above/from death. That God makes His salvation available to others in the household when its head (or federal head – i.e. father/husband or parent – 1Co 7:14) is righteous is the consistent practice of Scripture. From a theological perspective, this is sometimes referred to as “household” or “corporate election.”(tbdf)

2.2.1.3. God’s election of Abraham was conditioned upon the righteous behavior He witnessed in Abraham.

(Gen 15:1-21) = Abram’s righteous behavior here – as well as in the previous chapters (e.g. Gen 12:1-4) become the basis (or condition) for God’s decision to enter into a saving (covenant) relationship w/him (See Neh 9:8)[5].

2.2.1.4. Isaac, Jacob and the nation of Israel’s elections to salvation were all conditioned upon the righteous behavior of Abraham.

(Gen 17:1-8 w/21 w/26:1-5 w/28:10-15 w/Deu 7:6-8) = God’s election to s...

Though not existing until (almost) 100 years after the Protestant Reformation began, the theological system established at the Synod of Dort[1] – otherwise known as the Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, the five points of Calvinism, or the acronym, T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints) serves as an accurate summary of arguably the Reformation’s most guarded and novel belief: monergism (God is the only One working/acting in our salvation from its beginning until its end)[2]. The purpose of this study wb to re-consider the 5 Points of Calvinism and the monergistic view of salvation it presents through re-examining those biblical texts used to support it along w/the rest of the biblical witness to determine if this view is indeed the gospel of how God saves sinners[3].

TOTAL DEPRAVITY (AS INABILITY)
1.1. What this doctrine teaches = Because the Bible teaches that we are not only born and enslaved to sin; but also that every aspect of our nature/person (spirit, mind, will and body) has been corrupted by sin, we are completely UNABLE to exercise faith in Christ or faithfully obey God. Our wills are not free to make such choices or commitments, but rather bound against them. For a person, therefore, to turn from their sin and be saved requires divine intervention. God must graciously grant them the necessary faith and faithfulness through regeneration – or causing them to be born again. Speaking of its importance to the Reformation, John Piper states, “The issue of man’s bondage to sin and his moral inability to believe or be holy was the root issue of the Reformation — and the lynchpin of Protestantism.”

1.2. The problem w/this doctrine: Though the Bible teaches that we are not only born and enslaved to sin; but also that every aspect of our nature/person (spirit, mind, will and body) has been corrupted by sin, it does NOT teach that such depravity has, therefore, made us completely unable to repent, believe or be faithful. Understanding God’s Word within it given context, reveals mankind to possess a disability (b/c of his sin) but not an inability. In other words, people – though disabled (hampered or hindered) by sin can still make the choice to turn and follow God – or exercise faith in Christ, and commit themselves in faithful (not perfect) obedience to His commands. SUPPORT:

1.2.1. Human culpability requires the ability to repent, believe and be faithful.

If mankind did not have the ability to follow God then neither can they be deemed culpable (blameworthy/responsible) for their actions. They are instead victims. Yet the Scripture never views anyone in this light. The terms used to describe the wicked as well as the righteous infer culpability for our moral choices that is based on our ability (e.g. Gen 6:5-7; Rom 1:18-21; Rom 10:17-21; Deu 30:11-14 w/Rom 10:6-12).

1.2.2. Justice assumes those being judged have the ability to repent, believe and be faithful.

The biblical basis of all justice – most especially, the punishing and identification of individuals as guilty, is the assumption that all human beings possess moral ability. Hence the reason no one is ever excluded/excused from the consequences of disobeying God’s Law (Num 15:15-16; Lev 24:22). God’s prescribed jurisprudence is also a reflection of His own (and it too assumes ability).

1.2.3. An inability to repent, believe and be faithful would mean that any praise given to the faithful is not genuine.

If God is the One doing all the work in those who have faith and are faithful, then any praise given to those persons is not only unwarranted but disingenuous (e.g. Gen 6:7, 22:12; Mat 25:21-23, 31-40; Rev 3:4).

1.2.4. An inability to repent, believe and be faithful makes final judgment a complete farce.

If – in both categories (good or bad), we possessed no ability, then what exactly is reflected by our deeds? Only that God did or didn’t do something on our behalf. Shouldn’t it then be a judgment based on His deeds? See (Mat 16:27 – “repay each person according to what he has done.”).

1.2.5. An inability to repent, believe and be faithful would mean that God’s people (even God!) are preaching to the wrong crowd.

The Bible is filled w/examples of God or His people calling people to turn from their sin and follow Him. If however the only way that can happen is through divine intervention, then shouldn’t the preaching (or pleading) be directed at God?

1.2.6. God hardening a person (pushing them further in the direction of their rebellion) implies that people have the ability to repent, believe and be faithful.

If not then what has been hardened? If people are already completely unable, what does furthering such inability accomplish? (e.g. Exo 7:13-14, 22, 8:15, 19, 32, 9:7, 12, 34-35, 10:1; 1Sa 6:6; Mat 13:10-15).

1.2.7. God’s longsuffering or patience w/rebellious people also implies they have the ability to repent, believe and be faithful. 

The writers of Scripture insist that God is slow to anger or patient w/the sinful or rebellious. Such longsuffering also implies that we have the ability to turn from such behavior (in repentance, belief and faithful obedience) since otherwise, what would be the point of God waiting? (Exo 34:6; Num 14:18; Joe 2:13; Jon 4:2; Nah 1:3; Psa 86:15, 103:8, 145:8; Neh 9:17; Rom 2:4, 9:22; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 3:9, 14-15).

1.2.8. An inability to repent, believe and be faithful would mean that God’s expressed desire to see people happy – as well as His displeasure in seeing the wicked perish, are both fake.

Without the ability to do those things that God instructs (to obediently follow the design of the universe’s Designer), then the (built -into-its-design) consequences/punishment we face/experience when we violate it (and Him) not only makes Him a twisted torturer (earth becomes the torture chamber we cannot escape), but also a cosmic faker – since God expresses great desire – even pleading that people choose the path of happiness, as well as great displeasure when they don’t and (instead) choose the path leading to death (Deu 30:11-14 w/19-20; Eze 18:23, 33:11; e.g. Gen 4:6-7).

1.2.9. Desperately wicked hearts and dead men can still repent, believe and be faithful.

(Jer 17:8-10; Eph 2:1-9) = Neither of these texts teach inability, but rather that: 1) (Jer 17) if we are going to follow God we can’t trust our heart, 2) (Eph 2) w/o God’s gracious extension of salvation [this is the “gift” in v8 not faith], we would be condemned – or “dead” in our sins – i.e. damned since regardless of what we can do, there is still the issue of God deciding to extend the offer – which is actually the main reason for Paul’s discussion in (1-9) – we as Gentiles were “without hope and without God” b/c the offer of salvation/forgiveness was not extended to us (11-14). Our deadness then was due to lack of offer NOT lack of ability. Before moving on – notice the order of salvation in (8) = we are “saved thru faith”. IOW: faith precedes salvation – or divine intervention in regeneration/new birth – see again v5 salv. = alive/regen/new birth; also Joh 3:3).

1.2.10. God’s help does not imply inability to repent, believe and be faithful.

Several texts of Scripture speak to God giving aid to people for the purpose of turning to Him in faith/faithfulness. However, in light of the prior evidence, this cannot mean that w/o such help – these individuals were helpless. To imply such things also demonstrates poor deductive skills (e.g. B/C my wife helped me shovel snow, that means I was helpless to do it w/o her.

The only way such a conclusions cb drawn is if prior evidence revealed my inability to do the job by myself. In respect to our current discussion, the evidence once more points in the other direction). The biblical picture reveals God helping...

Though not existing until (almost) 100 years after the Protestant Reformation began, the theological system established at the Synod of Dort[1] – otherwise known as the Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, the five points of Calvinism, or the acronym, T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints) serves as both an accurate summary of arguably the Reformation’s most guarded and novel belief: monergism (God is the only One working/acting in our salvation from its beginning until its end)[2]. The purpose of this study wb to re-consider the 5 Points of Calvinism and the monergistic view of salvation it presents through re-examining those biblical texts used to support it along w/the rest of the biblical witness to determine if this view is indeed the gospel of how God saves sinners[3].

Why this study should matter to you: 1) because many of those claiming to be Christians today – especially those claiming to be reformed, biblical or paedo in their view of baptism, will also be Calvinists. 2) because Calvinism/Monergism is not what the Bible teaches and (in my opinion) has done as much to promote a false gospel as the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. the false gospel of the Pharisees – “antinomianism”). 3) because being informed as to the beliefs of Calvinism and the teaching of the Bible on these points is what opens the door to conversations about what Luther and many of the Reformers missed in their creation of an alternate work-based salvation requiring such monergistic thinking (i.e. marriage covenant theology [of gain and maintain]). 4) because many of us are Calvinists and (if I am right in my assessment of the Scriptures), we need to change (to the glory of God).

TOTAL DEPRAVITY (AS INABILITY)
1.1.What this doctrine teaches = Because the Bible teaches that we are not only born and enslaved to sin; but also that every aspect of our nature/person (spirit, mind, will and body) has been corrupted by sin, we are completely UNABLE to exercise faith in Christ or faithfully obey God. Our wills are not free to make such choices or commitments, but rather bound against them. For a person therefore to turn from their sin and be saved requires divine intervention. God must graciously grant them the necessary faith and faithfulness through regeneration – or causing them to be born again.

Martin Luther, the 16th century German monk and progenitor of the Reformation, was also the forerunner to this later doctrine. It was a part of his debates with Roman Catholic theologian Erasmus and the subject of his self-attested proudest effort – his book On Un-Free-will (or On the Bondage of the Will)[4]. More importantly, it was the doctrine he (and the other Reformers) believed was necessary not to the Reformation’s validity, but also a person’s salvation. That because it is this doctrine which most establishes the soteriological position of monergism[5]. Speaking of its importance to Luther and his “reformed theology”, John Piper states,

“At the heart of Martin Luther’s theology was the conviction that human beings are totally dependent on God’s omnipotent grace to rescue us from the bondage of the will by creating and decisively fulfilling every inclination to believe and obey God. The debates of the sixteenth century about the freedom of the will versus the bondage of the will were not peripheral to the Reformation. They were at the heart of the issue [emphasis mine]. At least Luther believed they were…For Luther, the issue of man’s bondage to sin and his moral inability to believe or be holy was the root issue of the Reformation — and the lynchpin of Protestantism.”

1.2. The problem w/this doctrine: Though the Bible teaches that we are not only born and enslaved to sin; but also that every aspect of our nature/person (spirit, mind, will and body) has been corrupted by sin, it does NOT teach that such depravity has therefore made us completely unable to exercise faith or be faithful to God. Understanding God’s Word within it given context, reveals mankind to possess a disability (b/c of his sin) but not an inability. In other words, people – though disabled (hampered or hindered) by sin can still make the choice to follow God – or put faith in Christ, and commit themselves in faithful (not perfect) obedience to His commands.

1.2.1. Culpability requires ability

If mankind did not have the ability to follow God then neither can they be deemed culpable (blameworthy/responsible) for their actions. They are instead victims. Yet the Scripture never views anyone in this light. The terms used to describe the wicked as well as the righteous infer culpability for our moral choices that is based on our ability:

1.2.1.1. (Gen 6:5-7) = If our depravity makes us unable to follow God, then what about Noah? If his righteous living is due to divine intervention, then why is that not disclosed in the text? More importantly, why is God so mad w/everyone else (enough to destroy the entire earth over it) if they really can’t do anything about it? Doesn’t it seem a little silly to speak of Noah “finding favor” for being righteous if in reality, he was like everyone else and the only reason those things were true was due to what God (secretly) did to change him? (e.g. Recent college scam: the reason it is such a big deal is b/c of the inequity it creates – some get in b/c they did the work; others b/c they someone paid their way). If the doctrine of Total Depravity is true, then the same is true in re: to those who go to heaven. It’s not b/c anyone actually was (or could be responsible for their actions), but rather b/c God “got us in”. This btw does not bring more glory to God/Christ. Rather it strips it away (e.g. Which gives more glory to my wife? 1) I make the decision to marry her b/c I recognize her beauty and value 2) I don’t see any beauty and value in marrying her and so her dad casts a love spell on me to make me see those things.).

1.2.1.2. (Rom 1:18-21) = If our sin has totally taken away our ability, then we indeed possess an “excuse”. Paul however makes it clear that this is not the case. Jesus says the same about the Jews who rejected Him (Joh 15:22, 24). Excuses remove culpability. That is their purpose. Not possessing them therefore establishes the opposite (e.g. a child missing school b/c they are sick versus a child missing b/c they are playing hooky). Saying therefore that human beings are “without excuse” communicates they possess both ability and culpability for their actions.

1.2.1.3. (Rom 10:17-21= The reason the Jews rejected Jesus was not b/c they couldn’t understand spiritual things or possessed some spiritual inability. It is this very ability that causes Paul to call them “disobedient”. Do we call people disobedient who do not possess the ability to be obedient? (e.g. Baby Knox is “disobedient” b/c he never reads the Bible, confesses Jesus with his mouth or fellowships w/the saints).

1.2.1.4. (Deu 30:11-14 w/Rom 10:6-12) = Paul uses what is taught in Deuteronomy 30 to reinforce his message of “no excuse” – or that all people [v12 – “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek”] have the ability to respond to God’s gospel/commands and follow Him. Notice also, there is no mention of divine intervention – or the need for God to intervene. Instead, ability and therefore also – culpability, are placed squarely upon our shoulders (“Do not say in your heart” = Do not make an excuse; “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart –that is, the word of faith we proclaim” = You have the ability to respond in faith. Hence once more the reason Paul calls the Jews “disobedient” in vv17-21).

1.2.2. Justice assumes ability

The attribute most communicated and celebrated by the writers of scripture is God’s justice. Can we really say that God is just if people are eternall...