Total Depravity of Humanity.

[B. W.]

Total Depravity

I had a guy post on my blog a question about — Total Depravity of Humanity.

Visit Blog Here

Would anyone like to define the doctrine?

Charles Finney used the term to define Depravity as the twisting away from good. No matter what good a person does, they'll eventual deviate from goodness. Much like a church deacon going to church a saint and then on his way home he gives into a road rage because the old lady crossing the street made him miss the Green Light.

I can see this as an example of total depravity — a total twisting away from any good we can do and accomplish. All fall short of the Glory of God!

In this way, I see that Humanity is totally depraved — missing the mark of God's best design for our lives not as some collective depraved drooling manic bent on evil.

How would you answer the guy question about total depravity?

I would like some ideas so I can answer him but if you would like to, please do. You do not have to be member to post a comment - just check the correct box as 'other' to post.

[Jac3510]

5 pointers define TD as the complete inability for a man to do anything good, including exercise faith in Christ. Thus, for a person to believe, they must first be regenerated. The only people regenerated, then, are the elect.

I'd simply say that this doctrine is found absolutely nowhere in Scripture. In the end, depravity is nothing more than the sin nature. Man, left to himself, will not seek God. He has a naturally bent towards fulfilling his own desires. It does not, though, logically follow from this that he is completely incapable of choosing not to follow his own desires. He may do good. Paul attests to this in Romas 2:14-15, saying "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." Men are capable of good. They are capable of belief because we are all made in the image of God, even though that image is marred by the Fall!

The proposition 5 pointers have to prove is this: a spiritually dead person is incapable of spiritual actions. This, of course, cannot be done, and is argued against by many scriptures, including the one listed above.

Spurgeon rightly noted that if the T falls, then all of Calvinism falls. That's just one more reason not to be a Calvinist. Their doctrine is simply NOT found in Scripture.

And now I ramble, so now I quit.

God bless

[Locker]

I read the question he wrote -

Why do calvanist like flowers?

Sing below in a whiny high pitched screach - like Tiny Tim on the old TV show Laugh In

"Tip toe - thru the Tulips - with meeee!"

Every time I here a calvanist say TULIP - I hear that voice in my head singing,

"Tip toe - thru the Tulips - with meeee!"

Now in all fun - lets stop and smell the coffee and perk up and sing!



Ask that guy what he beieves Total depravity is and go from there..

[puritan lad]

Not sure what the scripture in Romans that Jac quoted has to do with the subject, unless he wants to concede that he believes that the gentiles were saved by the law.

Total Depravity is all over the scriptures. It is simply the opposite of human ability, stating that no man can come to Christ unless it has been granted to Him by the Father. Man is totally helpless to do anything to initiate his own salvation. Total Depravity means that we are but clay in the hands of a sovereign potter, who will form out of the lump whatever He sees fit, either for glory or for destruction. It means that man in his natural state is blind, dead in trespasses, a slave to sin, at enmity with God, loves darkness and hates light, cannot receive things that are Spiritually discerned, drinks iniquity like water, and can no more do good then a leopard can change its spots. He must be born of the Spirit (not of the will of man but if God) before He can even see the Kingdom of God, let alone choose it. (Scripture references available upon request).

Ezekiel could have prophesied to those dry bones until the cows came home, but unless God would grant them life, they can never choose anything. Calvinism is the gospel (good news). All others are just “good advise”. Dead men don't need good advise. What they need is new life, which is why the Bible tells us that “Salvation is of the Lord”.

Granted, there are many Christians who don't like "flowers", because they love the Idol of Free Will. Man's will is not “free” until the Son makes it free. (Of course, they really don't like what the Bible says about Pharoah.)

I John 5:12
"He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life."

[Jac3510]

B.W.

I would hate to think I was unclear on my quotation of Romans. Paul clearly states that the unbelieving Gentiles did, at times, actually do the things required by the law because their conscience bore witness to them that such was required as this basic law was written on their hearts. How could this be?

The answer is simple. Man is created in the image of God, and though fallen, that image has not been destroyed. The image is simply marred. It is obvious, then, that people have the capacity to do good and respond to the law in part, but that is certainly not enough to save.

We can say that this is a part of natural revelation. Men are, by nature, evil, and yet they both know and do good in part. This points them back to their Creator.

edit: BTW, I'd recommend checking out the first page of the Calvinism thread. There'll you'll see a complete argument against TD, which, if you continue reading, you'll see no one bothered trying to refute. Why? Because you can't, because TD is not taught by Scripture.

[August]

edit: BTW, I'd recommend checking out the first page of the Calvinism thread. There'll you'll see a complete argument against TD, which, if you continue reading, you'll see no one bothered trying to refute. Why? Because you can't, because TD is not taught by Scripture.

Jac, since you are so sure of your case, why don't you join us for a discussion on a live webcast, The Dividing Line, either Tuesday or Thursday? Toll-free number available....Let us know when you are going to be dialing in so we can listen.

http://aomin.org/dividingline.html

Which thread and post are you specifically referring to that was not addressed?

[Jac3510]

August,

I may do that, but if so, it would have to be on a Thursday, as I work Tuesday nights. I'll listen to him this week so I can get a feel for how the show is run, and I'll let you know from there.

As for the thread I'm referring to, see http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1717.html. That's the "Is Calvinism a Heresy?" thread. In my first major post (13th on the page), the discussion on TD begins with the twelfth paragraph below my quotation of PL (begins, "This naturally leads . . . ).

If you read that thread from start to finish, you'll note that the vast majority of my arguments were never dealt with. The few that were, I offered a rebuttal, to which nothing was offered in return. In all of that discussion, my arguments against TD were never even addressed, so far as I remember. We did briefly discuss Pharoah, but not in relation to my original argument.
God bless

edit: btw, I got your Rev. 21:8 msg . . . what did I lie about?!? I'm trying to quit . . . no patch for that

edit2: I just listened to Dr. White's debate with Wilkin again, and no, I won't be involving myself with that. He refused to respond to Wilkins' argument, by admission. His method is much like Hitler's . . . repeat the lie loud enough and long enough, and people will believe it. Why respond when you can just keep shouting your position, regardless of what repudiations are offered?

So, if someone feels I'm wrong, I'll let them deal with my arguments themselves. Otherwise, I'll keep doing exactly what I am . . . responding to various discussions with Scripture and its exegesis.

[WingZero0]

Total depravity and original sin go hand in hand. It is Scriptural. To teach that we still have a "divine spark" left in us to do good is heretical.

Sin is any transgression of the Law. Yet, why do we sin? Original sin is the cheif sin, the root and fountainhead of all actual sins. Luther called it "nature sin" or "person sin". He said that even if a person would not think, spead, or do anything evil (which is impossible) his nature and person are nevertheless sinful. Before God they are utterly infected and corrupted by original sin.

God is not the creator of this. By the instigation of the devil through one man, sin entered the world. Original sin is multiplied from sinful seed through fleshly conception and birth from father and mother. God still creates us in the womb, however He uses the material available he does not create ex nihilo.

Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, hereditary evil is the guilt by which we are all in GOd's displeasure and are children of wrath. Original sin is the complete absence or lack of the created state of hereditary righteousness in Paradise. When Satan decieved Adam and Eve in the Garden, Satan corrupted the perfect righteousness of man.

Think of a cake. The cake is all perfect in it's design when all of a sudden a little kid comes and slides his finger across the frosting. The cake has been corrupted. So has our nature. It was corrupted to the point of destruction. Original sin is an inability and unfitness for all the things of God.

Yet, it's not just this entire absence of all good in spirtual, divine things. It is more than the lost image of God in mankind, it is at the same time also a deep, wicked, horrible, fathomless, mysterious, and unspeakable corrption of the soul's highest, chief powers in the understanding, heart and will.

We are naturally disposed and inclined to go against God and His chief Commandments.

Baptism releases us from the guilt of Adam's disobedience but does not "cure" original sin. Remember: original sin is the source of all our actual sins. We do continue to sin after baptism. Original sin is only cleansed by the blood of Christ on the Cross. We are made perfect on the final day when we are in heaven. Original sin is a disease.

Hereditary sin is so deep a corruption of nature that reason cannot understand it. It must be believed because of the revelation in Scriptures. (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, Exodus 33:20, Gen. 3:6).

To believe that after the fall of Adam the natural powers of man remained whole and uncorrupted and that man by nature possesses a right understanding and a good will is wrong.

To believe that man has a free will either to do good and refrain from evil or to refrain from good and do evil is wrong.

TO believe that man is able by his natural powers to observe and keep all the commandments of God is wrong.

To believe that man is able by his natural powers to love God above all things and his neighbor as himself is wrong.

To believe that if man does what he can, God is certain to grant him his grace is wrong.

To believe that when a man goes to the sacrament there is no need of a good intenetion to do what he ought, but it is enough that he does not have an evil intention to commit sin, for such is the goodness of man's nature and such is the power of the sacrament is wrong.

To believe that it cannot be proved from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit and his gifts are necessary for the performace of a good work is wrong.

If such teachings were true, CHrist would have died in vain, for there would be no defect or sin in man for which he would have had to die, or else he would have died only for the body and not for the soul inasmuch as the sould would be sound and only the body would be subject to death.

Calvin's double predestination, etc. is heretical. Calvin tries to explain why some are saved while others aren't. However, this is unknown. Scripture does not tell us why some are saved and others aren't. TO try and reason why is to become a heretic because all conclusions will be wrong. We cannot speak where Scripture does not. Our own reason is much below that of God's.

In summary, mankind is in total depravity: we live in original sin. Only through the blood of Christ are we made clean. To say original sin doesn't exist or to take the RCC path and say baptism cleanses original sin is wrong.

If you have any questions on the above do ask, this can be difficult to understand and I tried my best to give a good teaching of original sin.

[YLTYLT]

Wing,
Do you agree with Jac's rejection of "Total Depravity". I am not sure but I think you may each define it a little differently - But still come to the same conclusions

Jac wrote

Total Depravity - While we affirm that man is both dead in his sins and naturally hostile to God, we reject the notion that man is incapable of a positive response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit prior to regeneration. Man, left to his own, does not seek God. But, when he is convicted by the Spirit, he is capable to believe and accept the truth of the Gospel.

[WingZero0]

Perhaps we do now that I look at it again. My question to Jac is:

Do you agree that the act of conversion is the doing of the Holy Spirit and man can only do passive work. That passive work being the acceptance of the grace.

Do you agree that grace is resistable? Do you agree that why some are saved and others aren't is unknown?

[Jac3510]

Wing:

In answer to your direct questions, yes, I believe that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. If you see the 10th page of the "Is Calvinism a Heresy?" thread, you'll find a flowchart I posted. While conversion is not specifically listed on it, I'm sure you'll agree that it is embodied in the concept of regeneration, which is.

I find the whole of salvation the complete work of God. God does the regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. Man has no part in any of this.

I do believe that man must receive the gift of salvation, as per John 1. The condition for salvation is grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. If a person attempts to have ANY part in his own salvation, be it by works, baptism, repentance, commitment, etc., he has rejected the free gift.

I do believe that grace is resistable, so long as you are "grace" as the actual call to salvation; and I think that is a contributing factor (depending on how we are understanding our terms!) to the reality of people being unsaved.

edit: I'll work through your previous post when I get back home from work. God bless

[WingZero0]

I agree with everything you said except where you said that if someone tries to do good works then they reject the free gift.

Even if someone tries to earn a gift, the gift of salvation is still given. It is heretical to teach that one must do good works to earn salvation for that is clearly wrong, but if someone tries to out of ignorance they aren't rejecting the gift.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says that it is by grace that we are saved THROUGH FAITH. Faith is the funnel in which the grace is poured. The person doing the good works will undoubtfully have faith. So even though they do not know they have salvation, they do.

Also, you mention baptism as one of these rejecting works. Baptism (like the Lord's Supper) is a means of grace. It is a way that God bestows on us his grace of forgiveness and salvation. It is recieved in faith. If you go to the fount and don't believe, you won't recieve the grace. A believer, however, does.

So why do baptism and the Lord's Supper if all we have to do is have faith? Well first off, God commands us to do those things. That is what a sacrament is. A sacrament is a practice that both bestows upon us the grace of God and that it has been instituted by God.

Other than that I agree with you.

[Jac3510]

I can understand your disagreement, Wing, but let me walk you through this a little more closely:

Even if someone tries to earn a gift, the gift of salvation is still given. It is heretical to teach that one must do good works to earn salvation for that is clearly wrong, but if someone tries to out of ignorance they aren't rejecting the gift.

This is simply wrong. It is logically impossible to both trust Christ and my works for salvation. If I am trying to work my way to heaven, then I am not accepting grace. Paul makes this point very clear in Romans 11:6, saying, "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." (NIV)

Notice also Eph. 2, which you quoted. Yes, we are saved THROUGH faith, but we are saved BY grace. Faith is not the thing that saves, as you know. Grace is. Grace, by definition, is unmerited favor. It must be received as a gift. A true statement is this: "God saves by grace or not at all."

Consider this analogy. Suppose you were to offer someone a gift, and as soon as you did, they pulled money out of their pocket. Now, if you accept the money in exchange for the gift, then the gift is no longer a gift. We certainly don't think the gas we buy every day is a gift! No, the moment someone pays for something, even in part, it is no longer a gift. In fact, you would probably be offended if someone refused your gift, but instead insisted on paying you for it--especially if this is someone you dearly love and this is something you really want them to have!

Again, Paul makes this point clear in Romans 4, saying:

• Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom. 4:4-5, NIV)

Now, faith alone is the condition on which the gift of salvation is received. But, it MUST be received by faith ALONE. If a person attempts to "help" God, be it in ignorance or not, then they have not accepted the free gift of grace.

Also, you mention other isses:

Also, you mention baptism as one of these rejecting works. Baptism (like the Lord's Supper) is a means of grace. It is a way that God bestows on us his grace of forgiveness and salvation. It is recieved in faith. If you go to the fount and don't believe, you won't recieve the grace. A believer, however, does.

I disagree that it is a means of grace . . . particularly not a means of saving grace. We are not regenerated, justified, forgiven, or anything else of that nature by baptism or by the Lord's Supper. I invite you to show me a single place in Scripture where this is taught. My Bible clearly says that salvation is by grace through faith . . . grace is not applied through baptism or the Lord's Supper. They are absolutely never connected to eschatological salvation.

Now, I say again, if you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, then what you are saying is that Christ alone is not enough! You are, in fact, calling Christ a liar, for He said, "He who believes in me has everlasting life." There are over 100 verses that say explicitly that faith alone is the necessary condition for salvation. To add to that is to reject the promise of Christ.

So why do baptism and the Lord's Supper if all we have to do is have faith? Well first off, God commands us to do those things. That is what a sacrament is. A sacrament is a practice that both bestows upon us the grace of God and that it has been instituted by God.

Before I answer this, I want to point out the phrasing of your question to show how very dangerous the theology you are proposing is. You said, "So why do baptism and the Lord's Supper if all we have to do is have faith?" The obvious implication here is that we have to do more than have faith! Therefore, when Christ says to have faith in Him to be saved, you are saying to Him, "No, Lord . . . You are mistaken. I have to have faith, but I also have to be baptized and receive Your supper." You, thus, reject His offer.

Jesus saves on HIS terms and HIS terms alone. There is no other option with Him. You receive the gift of salvation freely, or you do not receive it at all.

Why, then, should we do the things mentioned? Because Christ told us to. They are part of the sanctification process. In baptism, we identify ourselves publically with Christ. The Lord's Supper is a reminder of His Covenant with us, much as Passover did for the Jews of old. We could take this much deeper and get into the theology of the covenant and its initialization, if you like. That would take us all the way back to Genesis. But, I hope this suffices for the time being.

God bless

[FFC]

When Adam of a free choice ate from the tree of the knowlege of good and evil did he not aquire the knowlege of the difference between good and evil? Do we not still have this knowlege? If so why can't a unregenerated person who knows the difference between good and evil choose to let God give them life?

[Turgonian]

Because 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:44).