Doctrine of Total Depravity: A question

[Matt241]

Hi. I don’t know whether this is the right forum on which to post this, but I’ve just been doing some research on the Evangelical doctrine of “Total Depravity”, and I’m confused.

If one subscribes to said doctrine (which I understand * to be “mankind lost all the Graces of God at the Fall including the inherent goodness which was part of the original creation”), where does that leave interfaith relations? I recently attended a People for Peace meeting, which aims to foster understanding between the different faiths and denominations.

Our attention was drawn to a letter the committee received from a gentleman who asked that some wording of the mission statement be removed which referred to the inherent goodness of people (a reasonable thing to be included in a mission statement for a Peace Forum, I thought). I questioned the chair as to the origin of this position, and the chairman (who is a Uniting Church minister) said that the objection stems from the 3rd Chapter of Genesis (The Fall of Man, I believe). How can peace and understanding between faiths be achieved if this is the view of some evangelicals?

I anticipate your responses, I’m just attempting to understand the position, and where it leaves interfaith relations, and whether this could be rectified somehow, or whether dialogue is unhelpful. I am Catholic, by the way.*

 

[Dorothy]

Hi. I don’t know whether this is the right forum on which to post this, but I’ve just been doing some research on the Evangelical doctrine of “Total Depravity”, and I’m confused.

If one subscribes to said doctrine (which I understand * to be “mankind lost all the Graces of God at the Fall including the inherent goodness which was part of the original creation”), where does that leave interfaith relations? I recently attended a People for Peace meeting, which aims to foster understanding between the different faiths and denominations.

Our attention was drawn to a letter the committee received from a gentleman who asked that some wording of the mission statement be removed which referred to the inherent goodness of people (a reasonable thing to be included in a mission statement for a Peace Forum, I thought). I questioned the chair as to the origin of this position, and the chairman (who is a Uniting Church minister) said that the objection stems from the 3rd Chapter of Genesis (The Fall of Man, I believe). How can peace and understanding between faiths be achieved if this is the view of some evangelicals?

I anticipate your responses, I’m just attempting to understand the position, and where it leaves interfaith relations, and whether this could be rectified somehow, or whether dialogue is unhelpful. I am Catholic, by the way.*

I am certainly not an expert so cannot answer in a scholarly way,…but I remember being taught that “total depravity” comes from Calvin’s teaching. In Catholicism it is taught that we are “wounded in our nature”, and so our being is not in harmony (spirit, emotions, one in being with the Lord) as it was in our first parents before the fall from grace. Thus we have a tendency to sin.

I look forward to more insightful responses.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t agree with T.U.L.I.P. of which total depravity is a part of. I am not sure if that is Calvin who came up with that, but I don’t believe in it either. In fact, I had been attending a church with a friend of mine that was nondenominational and multicultural. the minister did a series of sermons on T.U.L.I.P. Since I had been raised Episcopalian/Anglican this was something I had not heard of. it was then I knew that I needed to begin my conversion process to the Catholic church.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

If we were totally depraved, we would be no different to demons. Everything on earth would be in absolute chaos.

We would be unable to do anything good at all.

We’re fallen - not totally depraved.

I also doubt if we could be redeemed if we were totally depraved, since we would have lost the ability to even recognise the good.

If we were totally depraved, God would have to appeal to our totally depraved nature if we are to have any hope of becoming Christians. There’d be nothing for Him to appeal to.

 

[peter26]

If we were totally depraved, we would be no different to demons. Everything on earth would be in absolute chaos. We would be unable to do anything good at all.

Look up “total depravity” on Wikipedia. This is not quite what it teaches. A person may, according to this theory, do good, but only for selfish and egotistical motivations. For instance, if I help an old lady across the street, I’m only doing it to feel better about myself, so says the theory.

 

[DaveBj]

I believe that unregenerated humans are depraved, but not totally so. Most are nowhere near as evil as they could be (“totally depraved”), but the loss engendered by the Fall means that nobody is as good as he could be. That said, I suspect that whoever came up with the doctrine of total depravity must have spent a lot of time around two-year-olds

 

[fhansen]

If we were totally depraved, God would have to appeal to our totally depraved nature if we are to have any hope of becoming Christians. There’d be nothing for Him to appeal to.

And this is exactly why those holding that view teach that man -if elected-must be regenerated first of all, by grace, before he can even believe in God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

And this is exactly why those holding that view teach that man -if elected-must be regenerated first of all, by grace, before he can even believe in God.

There may be something to it. Many people have to be at their lowest hour to receive God’s grace, which comes through their sincere repentance.

 

[fhansen]

There may be something to it. Many people have to be at their lowest hour to receive God’s grace, which comes through their sincere repentance.

Most of Christianity would say that we respond, to grace, with faith, which leads to justification/regeneration. Calvinists teach that we’re so dead in our sins that we must be completely regenerated first of all-born again-in order to even believe. We must be a member of the “elect” in which case God determined our heavenly destiny before creation, and also in which case we can never lose that salvation, that elected state.

In the first case the will may or may not be involved while in the second case, of total depravity, man’s will is totally uninvolved. In Catholic teaching man’s will is still involved because he can reject the gift, the grace of faith, either at the beginning or at any point along the way throughout his life. God calls and draws and helps us to come to Him; He never forces us to.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Most of Christianity would say that we respond, to grace, with faith, which leads to justification/regeneration. Calvinists teach that we’re so dead in our sins that we must be completely regenerated first of all-born again-in order to even believe. We must be a member of the “elect” in which case God determined our heavenly destiny before creation, and also in which case we can never lose that salvation, that elected state.

In the first case the will may or may not be involved while in the second case, of total depravity, man’s will is totally uninvolved. In Catholic teaching man’s will is still involved because he can reject the gift, the grace of faith, either at the beginning or at any point along the way throughout his life. God calls and draws and helps us to come to Him; He never forces us to.

Yes I’m acquainted with Calvinist Doctrine. I don’t agree with it, but I do think that when one is in a very despairingly dark state of sin and reaches out to God, grace is immediate and transforming. That’s what I’m talking about. Not the Calvinist Doctrine.

 

[Matt241]

Look up “total depravity” on Wikipedia. This is not quite what it teaches. A person may, according to this theory, do good, but only for selfish and egotistical motivations. For instance, if I help an old lady across the street, I’m only doing it to feel better about myself, so says the theory.

But, then, that would make it no different to what the New Atheists teach, and (of course) theologically and philosophically (especially from a Catholic perspective), a very unsound and disordered teaching, and a distortion of biblical teaching.

 

[Matt241]

Most of Christianity would say that we respond, to grace, with faith, which leads to justification/regeneration. Calvinists teach that we’re so dead in our sins that we must be completely regenerated first of all-born again-in order to even believe. We must be a member of the “elect” in which case God determined our heavenly destiny before creation, and also in which case we can never lose that salvation, that elected state.

In the first case the will may or may not be involved while in the second case, of total depravity, man’s will is totally uninvolved. In Catholic teaching man’s will is still involved because he can reject the gift, the grace of faith, either at the beginning or at any point along the way throughout his life. God calls and draws and helps us to come to Him; He never forces us to.

Good response. Which of course, brings the concept of “Free Will” into the fray. Plus, if man is “Totally Depraved”, how, then, is it possible to repent, given the parameters of this doctrine?

 

[fhansen]

Good response. Which of course, brings the concept of “Free Will” into the fray. Plus, if man is “Totally Depraved”, how, then, is it possible to repent, given the parameters of this doctrine?

Well, with their doctrine, they’re caused to repent.

 

[Matt241]

Well, with their doctrine, they’re caused to repent.

“Caused” as in “forced”?

 

[JerryZ]

The Calvinist position has so many problems that it is quite incredible it gained any adepts to begin with.
Let’s try to enumerate a few.

Jesus did NOT die for the sins of every human being that ever lived: past, present and future. He died ONLY for the elect.

Humans are created from the foundation of the world either to BE saved or DAMNED forever to Hell. There is nothing we can do about it.
No free will. As a corollary to this. It does not matter what you do, under this doctrine a recalcitrant sinner CAN go to Heaven. Because he/her was chosen. And a Heathen who never knew Jesus will go to Hell even if he/she followed the Law written in his/her heart.

The worst aspect for me at least is that GOD “imputes” righteousness to the believer. Calvin wrote that GOD covers our sins with Jesus sacrifice hence underneath we are still piles of dung. There is no conversion. No change. We continue to be the perverted human beings we began as.

All these aspects of the doctrine of total depravity are refuted by Jesus and the Gospels. Only by twisting some passages out of context can they support this doctrine.
Dr. David Anders of EWTN “Called to Communion” radio program has given many responses to the Calvinist position. He was a former Calvinist.
This article could be germane to this topic:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

…

 

[fhansen]

“Caused” as in “forced”?

Yes, the elect have no choice in their salvation. God moves the will completely, towards Him-or He doesn’t-in which case the person remains as they were: reprobate, damned to hell.

 

[Matt241]

The Calvinist position has so many problems that it is quite incredible it gained any adepts to begin with.
Let’s try to enumerate a few.

Jesus did NOT die for the sins of every human being that ever lived: past, present and future. He died ONLY for the elect.

Humans are created from the foundation of the world either to BE saved or DAMNED forever to Hell. There is nothing we can do about it.
No free will. As a corollary to this. It does not matter what you do, under this doctrine a recalcitrant sinner CAN go to Heaven. Because he/her was chosen. And a Heathen who never knew Jesus will go to Hell even if he/she followed the Law written in his/her heart.

The worst aspect for me at least is that GOD “imputes” righteousness to the believer. Calvin wrote that GOD covers our sins with Jesus sacrifice hence underneath we are still piles of dung. There is no conversion. No change. We continue to be the perverted human beings we began as.

All these aspects of the doctrine of total depravity are refuted by Jesus and the Gospels. Only by twisting some passages out of context can they support this doctrine.
Dr. David Anders of EWTN “Called to Communion” radio program has given many responses to the Calvinist position. He was a former Calvinist.
This article could be germane to this topic:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

…

Exactly. The fact that there is “no real change”, and no real repentance or conversion of heart rings alarm bells for me as well. Sure, St. Peter did say that love covereth a multitude of sins, but Jesus called for a “real conversion of heart” (termed a “metanoia” in theology), in order to “change one’s purpose” for living, which is brought about by the direct experience of God.

If one is “hardened of heart” to the extent of Total Depravity, and doesn’t recognise that he is “poor in spirit”, how can he know he can change, and furthermore, how would anyone know Christians by their love, if they originally had no concept of Christian Love in the first place due to their total depravity?

 

[Slime13]

“Caused” as in “forced”?

I think those defending total depravity would suggest “caused” would be more of a gift of grace from God and less of something that is “forced”.

(2 Tim 2:25) …with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Grace and Peace