Does the Christian Bible teach that humans are totally depraved?

I can't sugarcoat it.

GabuEx

Seriously, TULIP left me speechless.

>_>

I think I need to go and calm down a bit after reading about Calvinism. That's some pretty wacky stuff. :|

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I can't sugarcoat it.

Teenaged

Seriously, TULIP left me speechless.

>_>

Yes, that's what I'm getting at (not that I accept there really is a translation error, I was talking in a hypothetical sense). And that is what GabuEx is suggesting -- that God would allow his word to bring about the conviction of a lie.

Lansdowne5

Well one way or another, someone is wrong: either I and everyone else who believes (or believed) the Bible teaches universal reconciliation are wrong, or those who believe the Bible teaches eternal torment is wrong.  So someone in here God is allowing to use his word to lie.

Given that I do not believe it took Christians five hundred years and a translation into Latin before figuring out what the Bible really says (which is a position that any supporter of eternal torment would have to take), my position on who is wrong ought to be evident.

This is something I've always found strange, really: supposedly the entire reason why God can't save everyone is due to the idea that God can't subvert free will, yet we're told that God would somehow intervene to make sure that every single person doing anything with his Word does not interpret or treat it falsely?  And often the same people who say this are also the ones claiming that every single Bible that came after the King James Version is corrupted.  And how does one possibly reconcile this idea with the fact that so many people who are all diligently doing their best to interpret his Word come to such disparate conclusions?

This really just seems an awful lot more like an ad hoc attempt to reconcile a contradiction without yielding any portion of one's position rather than an actually intellectually coherent explanation.

In Gabus interpretation, God makes people worship him out of fear of eternal damnation which makes him no better than a tyrantThessassin

Wait, what?  I have tirelessly argued against the idea that eternal damnation exists.

TULIP is an acronym that summarizes the five key points of Calvinism:GabuEx

The idea that God specifically chooses who will and will not be saved (totally arbitrarily, no less, given the "U") and that he preordained at the beginning of creation that most of his children will suffer forever in hell is just sick; I can't sugarcoat it.GabuEx

No matter how much I think that you people quoting from the bible for your arguements is great, and I would love to do it, I am too lazy to go get one now, and I am not studied enough to be able to reference it quickly anyhow.

Maybe later, ...way later. :)

No matter how much I think that you people quoting from the bible for your arguements is great, and I would love to do it, I am too lazy to go get one now, and I am not studied enough to be able to reference it quickly anyhow.

Maybe later, ...way later. :)

itsTolkien_time

Yeah I'm pretty much in the same camp. I'm nowhere near educted enough about the bible to go ahead and cite bible verses competently in support of an argument.

Oh and for everyone complaining about how despicable Calvinism is I have heard that there is a distinction between regular Calvinism and what is termed "hyper-Calvinism". So before you go and discount it be aware that there is a lighter version of it that might notbe so bad (I say might because I don't know anything about the distinction, only that it exists).

Oh and for everyone complaining about how despicable Calvinism is I have heard that there is a distinction between regular Calvinism and what is termed "hyper-Calvinism". So before you go and discount it be aware that there is a lighter version of it that might not be so bad (I say might because I don't know anything about the distinction, only that it exists).domatron23

Actually, the difference as I understand it between hyper-Calvinism and garden variety Calvinism is that the former believes so strongly that humans are totally depraved and that it is only through God's election that any human is saved that they deny the requirement that humans must repent of their sins and believe in Christ, as they deny any human capacity for any spiritual good whatsoever. The idea that humans cannot save themselves and that they must be chosen by God to be saved is fundamental to Calvinism as a whole.

There are certainly people out there who profess adherence to Calvinism and then assert that, even so, all humans have a choice (as Mr. Holding here appears to do), but such people are really just paying lip service to Calvinism while actually adhering to Arminianism.

Then what is the purpose of stating that we are unable of ourselves to turn to Christ?  If all are able, then this seems like a strange thing to say.  Whenever I have heard this statement, it was implied that not all were preordained by God to receive this ability. GabuEx

The purpose is to show that this is something Scripture teaches. It also helps us to have humility because it helps us see how dependent on God we are. 

You need support for the idea that most people will not become Christian in their lifetime?  Just look at the statistics - only a third of the world professes adherence to Christianity, and I'm sure that many of those people are ones that some Christians would declare unsaved. GabuEx

Yes, but people can change their religion after that, and I also hold that people don't absolutely have to hear the Gospel to be saved.

And now that I have read the article I will make a smart-ass comment about quote mining: The writer of that article fishes his quotes completely out of context though to his credit he admits it. For nearly every passage he quotes, if one was to open a Bible and read the entire chapter or paragraph that verse comes from, the final end message becomes one that does not fully support the idea of total depravity. The writer even says so himself in his conclusion:ChiliDragon

He wasn't trying to prove the doctrine. He was analyzing the TULIP to see if it's true. He can't be accused of quote mining. Anyway, I'm not a calvinist, but I do think the T doctrine speaks the truth about us in our most basic state. Also, even after God gives the grace we need to have the ability to freely choose him, I still think points 1-3 apply to a certain degree. This is important for the purposes of humility. Finally, you now need to explain why John 6 doesn't teach that we can't choose God on our own.

Anyway, I'm not a calvinist, but I do think the T doctrine speaks the truth about us in our most basic state. Also, even after God gives the grace we need to have the ability to freely choose him, I still think points 1-3 apply to a certain degree.MatrixSamurai27

But this is what I've been saying: you say that you think total depravity is true, yet you say that we have the ability to freely choose God. I mean no offense, but that's just plainly not total depravity once you allow that all humans have the ability to choose God - you're basically taking what you think is true and calling it total depravity.

Actually, the difference as I understand it between hyper-Calvinism and garden variety Calvinism is that the former believes so strongly that humans are totally depraved and that it is only through God's election that any human is saved that they deny the requirement that humans must repent of their sins and believe in Christ, as they deny any human capacity for any spiritual good whatsoever. The idea that humans cannot save themselves and that they must be chosen by God to be saved is fundamental to Calvinism as a whole.GabuEx

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]And now that I have read the article I will make a smart-ass comment about quote mining: The writer of that article fishes his quotes completely out of context though to his credit he admits it. For nearly every passage he quotes, if one was to open a Bible and read the entire chapter or paragraph that verse comes from, the final end message becomes one that does not fully support the idea of total depravity. The writer even says so himself in his conclusion:MatrixSamurai27

I am at work right now, my Bible is not, so I will have to get back to you about John 6 later tonight, after dinner.ChiliDragon

BibleGateway is what I use for all my online Bible needs. :P

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]I am at work right now, my Bible is not, so I will have to get back to you about John 6 later tonight, after dinner.GabuEx

BibleGateway is what I use for all my online Bible needs. :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]I am at work right now, my Bible is not, so I will have to get back to you about John 6 later tonight, after dinner.ChiliDragon

BibleGateway is what I use for all my online Bible needs. :P

What about Romans 9?

What about Romans 9?

Frattracide

But this is what I've been saying: you say that you think total depravity is true, yet you say that we have the ability to freely choose God. I mean no offense, but that's just plainly not total depravity once you allow that all humans have the ability to choose God - you're basically taking what you think is true and calling it total depravity.GabuEx

Okay look. Calvinists, Arminians, and Molinists like myself all believe you need God's grace before you can choose him. Calvinists say the grace is only given to some and is irresistible. Arminians and Molinists, however, say it is given to all based on John 12 and is resistible. This is all I'm trying to say. Calvinists don't have a monoply on the doctrine.

And I am confused again. You believe T is completely true, we are completely depraved. As a part of that we are utterly unable to turn towards God without him making us do so. If we were, the depravity would not be total.ChiliDragon

Answer to this above.

That said, about John 6... the main reason I don't think that it's the highest authority on who is saved and who isn't, and how it's done? It's outnumbered. There are countless parables in the gospels, some passages from the Old Testament as well as from the New Testament, especially some of Paul's letters, that over and over hammer in that humans as a species and as individuals are free to make our own decisions. We can choose God, or we can chose something(-one) else, and God patiently waits for us to make up our minds. I would even argue (note that this is my personal opinion and interpretation) that we don't need God's grace to enable us to chose him before we can do so, we have that ability in our human nature already. Because we are not totally depraved. ;)ChiliDragon

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. domatron23

You know I am allergic to stupidity! Why? :cry:

In God's name why? :why:

Seriously now what was this insurpassably moronic thing? :|

Also....

Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

Dont you dare... :x  !

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

@ChiliDragon ~ You have time to use Gamespot at work, but not to go to a bible website? :PitsTolkien_time

Which means my next reply to the whole John 12 among other things, will be coming along some time tonight. ChiliDragon

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

Reactions in sequence: 

1. LMAO

2. Eww

3. Everyone knows that there is a god obviously, duh! :roll:

4. I'm not a christian, yay!

5. Booring

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

'I wonder what the response to that would be on some other unions.'

'I can hear it now, "He's one of those judgmental, mean-spirited preachers." When in truth he is a very loving pastor who loves his people enuogh to tell them the truth.'

'Or, "He's preaching fire and brimstone and driving non-believers further away from God." '

Not quite. >_>

[QUOTE="domatron23"]I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.Funky_Llama

'I wonder what the response to that would be on some other unions.'

'I can hear it now, "He's one of those judgmental, mean-spirited preachers." When in truth he is a very loving pastor who loves his people enuogh to tell them the truth.'

'Or, "He's preaching fire and brimstone and driving non-believers further away from God." '

Not quite. >_>

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Which means my next reply to the whole John 12 among other things, will be coming along some time tonight. ChiliDragon

I mentioned it earlier. Verse 32. It's also mentioned and explained in depth in the Tektonics article I cited.

I mentioned it earlier. Verse 32. It's also mentioned and explained in depth in the Tektonics article I cited.

MatrixSamurai27

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.Teenaged

'I wonder what the response to that would be on some other unions.'

'I can hear it now, "He's one of those judgmental, mean-spirited preachers." When in truth he is a very loving pastor who loves his people enuogh to tell them the truth.'

'Or, "He's preaching fire and brimstone and driving non-believers further away from God." '

Not quite. >_>

And as for blackregiment's comment at the end there, for once I wouldn't say he's driving non-believers further away from God because non-believers and most Christians will simply not listen to this nutter.

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

Aww, I thought it was a trailer to a rapture movie :(

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

WHOAH!!! WHAT THE...!!!!!!  That woke me up, I'm not tired anymore!

Talk about wierd.

Okay, here we go. Sorry for the delay... I spent all of last night preparing and committing insect genocides (insecticide?). I might put up another blog about it. :) Anyways. Sorry again for the delay. Here we go. So the biggest problem with arguing against total depravity is that very few theological scholars spend their time and efforts on trying to tear down doctrines they disagree with. They try to find support for the ones they believe in. I am in a bit of an awkward position though because I don't believe in picking out verses from the Bible to support a certain standpoint or view. It's far too easy to find support for virtually anything in the Bible if you trim the quotes enough; the potential for unintentional quote mining is nearly endless. That said, there are a few passages I like, that seem to speak against the notion that we are created completely depraved and lost forever. (Or born, if you prefer that term). The first one is Romans 3:22-24, "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Another is 1 Thess 4:7-8, "God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.", and Eph 5:5-6, "No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a man is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient." "All have sinned", "reject", "disobedient" imply that it was a choice of the people mentioned to commit sins, disobey, et cetera. It wasn't an unavoidable part of their nature, the potential for it was there, but that's just potential. A bottle of hair spray is flammable, but that doesn't automatically mean that ever hair spray bottle in existence automatically explodes. And then there is Luke 11:9-10, "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Slightly rephrased in Matt 7:7-8, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." That in turn implies that there is an active decision on the person's part to knock on the door, not that they are made to do so. As for John 12:32, that depends on whether the word "draw" means it draws them the way a magnet draws metal (irresistible and over-powering) or if it draws the way the sun draws my houseplants to it... they actively turn towards the light. I did note in the article that the greek word used refers to the former, but then the next question becomes, is that the word used in all other verses with a seemingly similar meaning? I think the bottom line is, that there is support in the Bible for both doctrines, and we see evidence for the one we want to believe in. I still maintain that God would not love all humans if all humans were born/created completely depraved, but that we can become that way if we make the wrong choices in life.ChiliDragon

what about Romans Chapter 9? 0_o

what about Romans Chapter 9? 0_o

Frattracide

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

what about Romans Chapter 9? 0_o

ChiliDragon

I was referring to the part that talks about god specifically choosing certain people for destruction and certain people for salvation.

I was referring to the part that talks about god specifically choosing certain people for destruction and certain people for salvation.

Frattracide

For the record, you're talking about this, yes?

"For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:15-18 )

For the record, you're talking about this, yes?

"For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:15-18 )

GabuEx

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? the KJV

That's Romans 9:19-24

That seems to explicitly state that god, at least in some circumstances, interferes with freewill.

I don't believe in picking out verses from the Bible to support a certain standpoint or view. It's far too easy to find support for virtually anything in the Bible if you trim the quotes enough; the potential for unintentional quote mining is nearly endless.ChiliDragon

^ that's why we have amendments, women weren't allowed to own anything when the Constitution was written.

But if you take it literally, they truly don't have many rights stated exactly for them in the Constitution. 

I am in a bit of an awkward position though because I don't believe in picking out verses from the Bible to support a certain standpoint or view. It's far too easy to find support for virtually anything in the Bible if you trim the quotes enough; the potential for unintentional quote mining is nearly endless.ChiliDragon

So somehow the fact that people wrongly interpret the Bible is a reason for not believing in TD?

"All have sinned", "reject", "disobedient" imply that it was a choice of the people mentioned to commit sins, disobey, et cetera. It wasn't an unavoidable part of their nature, the potential for it was there, but that's just potential. A bottle of hair spray is flammable, but that doesn't automatically mean that ever hair spray bottle in existence automatically explodes.ChiliDragon

It doesn't say so much that it is an avoidable part of our natures but more that we choose evil because we naturally like it. You don't always have to choose something that you like more than something else.

That in turn implies that there is an active decision on the person's part to knock on the door, not that they are made to do so.ChiliDragon

Which is what I said John 12:32 supports. We are able to get to a point where we can freely choose God or not once he gives us grace to overcome our depravity. We don't need more grace to choose him. He gives us just enough to where we can freely choose between competing alternatives. Like I said, resistible, not irresistible.

As for John 12:32, that depends on whether the word "draw" means it draws them the way a magnet draws metal (irresistible and over-powering) or if it draws the way the sun draws my houseplants to it... they actively turn towards the light. I did note in the article that the greek word used refers to the former, but then the next question becomes, is that the word used in all other verses with a seemingly similar meaning? I think the bottom line is, that there is support in the Bible for both doctrines, and we see evidence for the one we want to believe in.ChiliDragon

The author mentions elsewhere that the Greek word behind "draw" can have the meaning of being dragged to prison by some guards, whom you can certainly resist if you want to.

I still maintain that God would not love all humans if all humans were born/created completely depraved, but that we can become that way if we make the wrong choices in life.ChiliDragon

This is where you're disbelief in TD makes God's grace too weak. His grace is so great that it can love the unlovable.

Finally, you haven't even tried to do a contextual anaylsis or anything on the John 6 passage to explain why it can't teach that is impossible for us to choose God without his help.

I was referring to the part that talks about god specifically choosing certain people for destruction and certain people for salvation.

Frattracide

Um, Romans 9 is talking about things God elects people to do in history, not his election for their eternal destiny. Besides, in Exodus, God didn't start to harden Pharoahs heart until Pharoah had decided to harden his own heart several times.

I found this on the CWU and thought it was lulzworthy enough to post in this thread. Reminds me of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.domatron23

Oh wow.

I couldn't fit it all in one comment, but this is what I was going to post as a comment to that video:

Speaking as a Christian... I can only weep and express empathy for Albert Martin - not out of a false sense of greater piety, but rather out of empathy and sorrow for one of my brothers.  Whatever God one worships, that is how one will be.  If one worships a God of whom one is afraid, then one will preach fear; but if one worships a God whom one loves, then one will preach love.  From the way fear drips from the very core of the message that this preacher gives, one gains great insight into the God whom he worships, and it is, plainly and simply, not the God who is love (1 John 4:16) nor the God whose anger lasts but a moment (Psalm 30:5).

"There is no fear in love." (1 John 4:18 )

I do not say this out of concern for Albert Martin's eternal destiny - in the love that is God I trust always - but rather for the effect that his misguided beliefs in a God not of the Bible have both on himself on others.  If one preaches fear, one will be afraid; if one preaches wrath, one will be wrathful; if one preaches judgment, one will be judgmental; and if one preaches torment, one will be tormented.  And if one is afraid, if one is wrathful, if one is judgmental, if one is tormented, then one cannot know the true face of God and the immense peace and joy that accompanies that knowledge.

EDIT: I'm probably gonna regret this... :P  I've decided to go to town in the comments section of that video.

EDIT: I'm probably gonna regret this... :P  I've decided to go to town in the comments section of that video.

GabuEx

Hah, I had a read of that. Very entertaining.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

EDIT: I'm probably gonna regret this... :P  I've decided to go to town in the comments section of that video.

domatron23

Hah, I had a read of that. Very entertaining.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

EDIT: I'm probably gonna regret this... :P I've decided to go to town in the comments section of that video.

Teenaged

Hah, I had a read of that. Very entertaining.

Eh, I find it more sad than anything else. It's basically what I said: if one preaches fear, then one cannot help but be afraid - the Bible says in no uncertain terms that there will be those who were absolutely sure that they were in God's favor but were actually not. If one then believes that those people are ones who will go to eternal hellfire, then what peace of mind can one possibly find in such a doctrine? Anyone who believes in that doctrine, therefore, has only two options: either live a life of perpetual fear, or live a life of self-delusion, trying desperately to convince oneself that all those verses speaking of those who are self-assured finding that God thinks otherwise only apply to everyone else.

This is not even to mention questions such as what happens if one's child, parent, or friend dies without being saved. The callous nature of so many Christians never ceases to amaze me, where they seem either not to think about or not to truly care about the fate of all those who they feel went to eternal hellfire - as long as they've got theirs, they're good. But, then, I suppose that's all part and parcel of one who believes that God loves the elect more than they love everyone else (something I have seen asserted many times) - anyone who believes in such a god cannot help but also love some more than others.

Thankfully, that is not what the Christian religion actually preaches. And the sooner someone finds that out, the sooner their spiritual healing can finally begin.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

EDIT: I'm probably gonna regret this... :P  I've decided to go to town in the comments section of that video.

Teenaged

Hah, I had a read of that. Very entertaining.

All the more for people who actually understand Greek I imagine.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

EDIT: I'm probably gonna regret this... :P  I've decided to go to town in the comments section of that video.

domatron23

Hah, I had a read of that. Very entertaining.

All the more for people who actually understand Greek I imagine.

Apparently I've missed a lot lately by not come here lately. 

As far as the doctrine of Total Depravity goes, I do believe there is such a thing in the following way.  We as human beings were once good but at our fall we became corrupt.  With that curruption it became impossible for us to seek God by our own choice and willpower.  Essentually, we are so corrupt we have no desire within us to seek Christ.

Because of that depravity, the only way our desire can be changed is through the Holy Spirit's power.  At that point our desires change and then we can turly seek Christ.  I do not believe it is possible to seek God without his grace lavished upon us.  I believe everything is done in the order of Romans 8:30, "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."  I can explain it this way, we have default nature which is against God.  Only through God's Holy Spirit's working can our nature be changed into one that seeks Christ (aka, we are born again, we are spiritually circumsized, etc.).  However, we still are not completely free from sin until we are also given a new body at either death of Christ's return (Romans 7, 1 Corinthains 15).

There are many logical ramifications of this idea, such as Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement (Not saying Jesus did not die for all, all are given the chance to respond to Christ but only those who will be saved are saved), Irresistable Grace, and Perseverence of the Saints.  As you can see, this is Calvinism.  Many think of this as a battle between God's Soveriegnty and man's free will.  However, being the compatablist that I am, I do not believe this and separate the two. 

This topic is most definitely one that has been heavily debated among Christians since the time of Augustine (he believed much of this [assuming I explained it correctly]).  Many have literally fought and died over this doctrine which is extremely sad.  In the end, this is something Christians should not fight over since Calvinists, Armenians, etc. all beleive largely the same things.  In other words, it's all about Christ and only through him can we find salvation (or to the Calvinists, given salvation).  Essentially what we are debating is "simple depravity" vs. total depravity.  I personaly do not see a difference.

Apparently I've missed a lot lately by not come here lately. 

As far as the doctrine of Total Depravity goes, I do believe there is such a thing in the following way.  We as human beings were once good but at our fall we became corrupt.  With that curruption it became impossible for us to seek God by our own choice and willpower.  Essentually, we are so corrupt we have no desire within us to seek Christ.

Because of that depravity, the only way our desire can be changed is through the Holy Spirit's power.  At that point our desires change and then we can turly seek Christ.  I do not believe it is possible to seek God without his grace lavished upon us.  I believe everything is done in the order of Romans 8:30, "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."  I can explain it this way, we have default nature which is against God.  Only through God's Holy Spirit's working can our nature be changed into one that seeks Christ (aka, we are born again, we are spiritually circumsized, etc.).  However, we still are not completely free from sin until we are also given a new body at either death of Christ's return (Romans 7, 1 Corinthains 15).

There are many logical ramifications of this idea, such as Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement (Not saying Jesus did not die for all, all are given the chance to respond to Christ but only those who will be saved are saved), Irresistable Grace, and Perseverence of the Saints.  As you can see, this is Calvinism.  Many think of this as a battle between God's Soveriegnty and man's free will.  However, being the compatablist that I am, I do not believe this and separate the two. 

This topic is most definitely one that has been heavily debated among Christians since the time of Augustine (he believed much of this [assuming I explained it correctly]).  Many have literally fought and died over this doctrine which is extremely sad.  In the end, this is something Christians should not fight over since Calvinists, Armenians, etc. all beleive largely the same things.  In other words, it's all about Christ and only through him can we find salvation (or to the Calvinists, given salvation).  Essentially what we are debating is "simple depravity" vs. total depravity.  I personaly do not see a difference.

mindstorm

Are you saying that you have to force yourself to believe in Christ, since you "are corrupt and have no desire to seek him"?

What about 2 John 1:7 to 1:10? Doesn't Romans 13:1 go against this "lavishment of grace" upon us all?

Why would you not be completely free of sin, once you have succumbed to this "grace" or get "spiritually customised", as you say?

When you speak of "logical ramifications", are you talking about inductive logic (or inference)? I can't see how you expect us to make a connection between your list and Calvinism. Perhaps you misunderstand what an entrenched position you place yourself, in assuming we know how these inferred ramifications led you to to your own personal belief.

I think I can agree with you that Christians should not fight each other (or anyone else) over the veracity of their claims to faith.