What is the doctrine of total depravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

guanophore

Guest
40.png
Pwrlftr:
What is the doctrine of total depravity?
This question was taken from a thread on “How is it possible that Mary can be sinless?”

The thread drifted off topic into the notion of whether or not babies are guilty of personal sin.

Here is a helpful link to the CAF library
 
I found this from the Protestant Reformed Church which claims it is one of the 5 Points of Calvin:

prca.org/fivepoints/chapter1.html

and this which says it is the Presbyterian doctrine of total depravity

the-highway.com/depravity_Gregory.html

And of course Wikipedia (ick) has information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

From which I’ll take just the opening paragraphs:
Total depravity (also called total inability and total corruption) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concepts of original sin. It is also advocated by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of Lutheranism,[1] Anglicanism and Methodism,[2] Arminianism, and Calvinism.[3] It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered.
**
Summary of the doctrine
Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of Original Sin
. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, as God requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passions, and will. Therefore, in Reformed Theology, God must predestine individuals into salvation since man is incapable of choosing God.[4]
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise.[5]
Nonetheless, the doctrine teaches optimism concerning God’s love for what he has made and God’s ability to accomplish the ultimate good that he intends for his creation. In particular, in the process of salvation, God overcomes man’s inability with his divine grace and enables men and women to choose to follow him, though the precise means of this overcoming varies between the theological systems. The differences between the solutions to the problem of total depravity revolve around the relation between divine grace and human free will – namely, whether it is efficacious grace that human free will cannot resist, as in Augustinism, or sufficient or prevenient grace enabling the human will to choose to follow God, as in Molinism and Arminianism.

**
 
It’s the total inability to please God w/out God’s assistance.
If you already had an answer that suited you, why did you ask?

Do you disagree that the belief that babies sin when they cry in a demanding way is a result of total depravity?
 
If you already had an answer that suited you, why did you ask?

Do you disagree that the belief that babies sin when they cry in a demanding way is a result of total depravity?
Almost every Catholic I speak to completely mis-understand this. Partly because the doctrine is rather awkwardly named. I was just curious to know if you knew of which you were speaking.

You seemed to be taking it way, way out of context in the discussion on the last thread w/ the babies crying.

To answer you other question, I’m not sure how one would link crying out of hunger and the total inability of an infant. Seems a rather strange thing to consider if you ask me…and you did ask me.
 
Apparently the remark came about from a Curriculum program called GFI.

Focus on the Family had a response to questions about this curriculum. While they found some positive aspects they chose not to recommend the program and also addressed this idea of ‘not attending to babies’ crying’ thus:

**Focus on the Family statement **

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:36:24 -0700
From: CORRDPT@fotf.org
To: srein@calpoly.edu Thanks for your note, Mr. Rein. In response to your question, we would like to re-state our position on Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo’s materials on parenting. The following is the result of an extensive evaluation by our staff.
We are aware that many parents have implemented the Ezzos’ materials in their homes with great success. We have heard positive testimony from a number of sources, including members of our own staff, about the many ways in which God has used Growing Families International (GFI) to help young families achieve greater harmony and stability. Dr. Dobson has no reason to doubt that this is true; he is, in fact, pleased to know that so many families have found the Ezzos’ materials helpful.
On the other hand, we do have some concerns and reservations about the Ezzos’ work, including the updated editions of Preparation for Parenting and Growing Kids God’s Way. First, it seems to us that their philosophy of childrearing is far too rigid. The very title of program, Growing Kids God’s Way has an unnecessarily exclusivistic sound about it, as if there were only one “correct” and godly way to raise children and that all other methods were “unbiblical.” In contrast to this, Dr. Dobson believes that there are many different approaches to raising children which are both healthy and consistent with the teaching of Scripture.
Speaking of Scripture, the Ezzo’s use of biblical texts is, in our view, a second cause for serious concern. They have, for example, cited Matthew 27:46 – “. . . My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. “Praise God,” writes Mr. Gary Ezzo in Preparation for Parenting, “that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross.” We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.
Also, we are aware that the authors’ proposals regarding controlled feeding schedules for infants are highly controversial. Some critics have suggested that they might possibly result in child abuse if applied legalistically, inflexibly, and without regard for circumstance and the special needs of individual children. In fact, our ministry has received numerous letters from parents, pastors, midwives, physicians, and lactation professionals regarding cases of failure-to-thrive in infants subjected to the Ezzos’ program. We don’t believe their experience should be ignored.
For these reasons we have chosen not to recommend the Ezzos’ material to Focus on the Family’s constituents. In the final analysis, we would suggest that, if a parent decides to use the GFI curriculum, its principles should be implemented only in conjunction with generous measures of common sense, intuition, and natural parental affection.
We hope these thoughts prove helpful. Thanks again for taking a moment to write.
Grey Gunn
Focus on the Family
 
Apparently the remark came about from a Curriculum program called GFI.

Focus on the Family had a response to questions about this curriculum. While they found some positive aspects they chose not to recommend the program and also addressed this idea of ‘not attending to babies’ crying’ thus:

**Focus on the Family statement **

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:36:24 -0700
From: CORRDPT@fotf.org
To: srein@calpoly.edu Thanks for your note, Mr. Rein. In response to your question, we would like to re-state our position on Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo’s materials on parenting. The following is the result of an extensive evaluation by our staff.
We are aware that many parents have implemented the Ezzos’ materials in their homes with great success. We have heard positive testimony from a number of sources, including members of our own staff, about the many ways in which God has used Growing Families International (GFI) to help young families achieve greater harmony and stability. Dr. Dobson has no reason to doubt that this is true; he is, in fact, pleased to know that so many families have found the Ezzos’ materials helpful.
On the other hand, we do have some concerns and reservations about the Ezzos’ work, including the updated editions of Preparation for Parenting and Growing Kids God’s Way. First, it seems to us that their philosophy of childrearing is far too rigid. The very title of program, Growing Kids God’s Way has an unnecessarily exclusivistic sound about it, as if there were only one “correct” and godly way to raise children and that all other methods were “unbiblical.” In contrast to this, Dr. Dobson believes that there are many different approaches to raising children which are both healthy and consistent with the teaching of Scripture.
Speaking of Scripture, the Ezzo’s use of biblical texts is, in our view, a second cause for serious concern. They have, for example, cited Matthew 27:46 – “. . . My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend to crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. “Praise God,” writes Mr. Gary Ezzo in Preparation for Parenting, “that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross.” We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.
Also, we are aware that the authors’ proposals regarding controlled feeding schedules for infants are highly controversial. Some critics have suggested that they might possibly result in child abuse if applied legalistically, inflexibly, and without regard for circumstance and the special needs of individual children. In fact, our ministry has received numerous letters from parents, pastors, midwives, physicians, and lactation professionals regarding cases of failure-to-thrive in infants subjected to the Ezzos’ program. We don’t believe their experience should be ignored.
For these reasons we have chosen not to recommend the Ezzos’ material to Focus on the Family’s constituents. In the final analysis, we would suggest that, if a parent decides to use the GFI curriculum, its principles should be implemented only in conjunction with generous measures of common sense, intuition, and natural parental affection.
We hope these thoughts prove helpful. Thanks again for taking a moment to write.
Grey Gunn
Focus on the Family
Ezzo sounds kind of scary.
 
Almost every Catholic I speak to completely mis-understand this. Partly because the doctrine is rather awkwardly named. I was just curious to know if you knew of which you were speaking.

You seemed to be taking it way, way out of context in the discussion on the last thread w/ the babies crying.

To answer you other question, I’m not sure how one would link crying out of hunger and the total inability of an infant. Seems a rather strange thing to consider if you ask me…and you did ask me.
If you read the postings on the other thread, the notion was forwarded that the demanding cry of an infant was an expression of the sin nature. This was followed by the claim that some have been taught not to respond to a demanding infant because it trains them to manipulate.

All this flows out of the question “what can a 7 month old baby do to commit a sin”. Personally I believe that many Protestants don’t have a very intact theology about original sin, and personal sin.

There is also a great deal of disagreement about what baptism does (if anything) to change the human condition.

I want to explore the doctrine of total depravity more, but need to log in from a different computer. This one is not designed for forums. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top