What's so important about total depravity?

[Flopfoot]

I’ve been reading the Babylon Bee (Christian news satire) and from that have learned about some Protestant issues like Calvinism vs Arminianism. Here’s how I understand it.

Both of them rely on total depravity. This means that man is corrupted by original sin, and even his free will is so corrupted that he couldn’t freely choose to follow God using his will alone. Only God’s grace can let him follow God.

So why doesn’t everyone follow God? This is where the two beliefs diverge.

Calvinism says that God’s grace is only offered to certain people, and everyone who is offered it will eventually be saved.

Arminianism says that God’s grace is offered to everyone, but that people can choose to reject it.

Now, this doesn’t really seem like a dilemma to me, but it’s apparently pretty important to Protestants. My question is why do they all accept that initial premise of total depravity?

 

[ATraveller]

it’s apparently pretty important to Protestants

Most likely, to the average layperson, it isn’t. When I was a teen, someone asked a Calvinism vs. Arminianism question and we were told it wasn’t important. Just focus on our own salvation, glorify God with our lives and evangelize. It’s a bigger deal I suppose if you are more well-read, devout, and etc.

why do they all accept that initial premise of total depravity

The impact of the Fall was massive and still affects us today. It’s the reason why we need a Saviour. It also explains a lot of the chaos that’s happening around us. The best overarching explanation I would argue.
This is how the Westminster Confession of Faith (Reformed) explains total depravity:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,(h) and wholly inclined to all evil,(i) do proceed all actual transgressions.(k)

(h) Rom. 5:6; Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18; Col. 1:21.
(i) Gen. 6:5; Gen. 8:21; Rom. 3:10, 11, 12.
(k) James 1:14, 15; Eph. 2:2, 3; Matt. 15:19.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner;(o) whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,(p) and curse of the law,(q) and so made subject to death,(r) with all miseries spiritual,(s) temporal,(t) and eternal.(u)

I John 3:4.
(o) Rom. 2:15; Rom. 3:9, 19.
(p) Ephes. 2:3.
(q) Gal. 3:10.
(r) Rom. 6:23.
(s) Ephes. 4:18.
(t) Rom. 8:20; Lam. 3:39.
(u) Matt. 25:41, II Thess. 1:9.

The Westminster Confession of Faith - Ligonier Ministries

Now, this doesn’t really seem like a dilemma to me

I’m not sure precisely what this is referring to. The doctrine or the differences on Grace and monergism vs. synergism?

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been reading the Babylon Bee (Christian news satire) and from that have learned about some Protestant issues like Calvinism vs Arminianism. Here’s how I understand it.

Both of them rely on total depravity. This means that man is corrupted by original sin, and even his free will is so corrupted that he couldn’t freely choose to follow God using his will alone. Only God’s grace can let him follow God.

So why doesn’t everyone follow God? This is where the two beliefs diverge.

Calvinism says that God’s grace is only offered to certain people, and everyone who is offered it will eventually be saved.

Arminianism says that God’s grace is offered to everyone, but that people can choose to reject it.

Now, this doesn’t really seem like a dilemma to me, but it’s apparently pretty important to Protestants. My question is why do they all accept that initial premise of total depravity?

Just Calvinists believe that mainly, not all Protestants. It’s a ridiculous notion BTW, defeats the whole beauty and purpose of God’s plan of salvation. It’s Christianity dumbed down, by intellectuals/hyper-rationalists. Or just poor interpreters of Scripture.

 

[ATraveller]

Just Calvinists believe that mainly, not all Protestants.

Arminians also hold to it but not the same way as Calvinists. Same with Lutherans.

It’s a ridiculous notion BTW, defeats the whole beauty and purpose of God’s plan of salvation. It’s Christianity dumbed down, by intellectuals/hyper-rationalists. Or just poor interpreters of Scripture.

I would argue Calvinism and the doctrine of total depravity are on firm ground. I used to be an Arminian and despised Calvinism but the last year or so, especially the last few months, the more I looked into Calvinism, the more I considered and reflected on the events and chaos in the world, inside and outside churches, I’m a reluctant Calvinist of some sort now.

 

[Flopfoot]

The dilemma I mean is monergism vs synergism. On one hand God doesn’t have total sovereignty since man doesn’t have to co-operate with Him, but on the other hand it would mean that some people are condemned from the moment they’re born.

As a Catholic, I don’t think the idea of God letting man have free will goes against His nature which is why I assume that if I was a Protestant I’d be an Arminian

 

[FollowChrist34]

You have no idea how refreshing a defense of total depravity is to me. I don’t know that much about Calvin - I have never read him or much on his doctrine. But Catholics believe in the inherited guilt of original sin - an innate tendency of the human will to sin. My experience of humanity (mine and others) does tend to confirm this view. I don’t think it’s dark, just honest. To me, it is a starting point, right. This is precisely why we need God. You don’t stay in TD or original sin or innate tendency in my mind/heart, you are freed by grace, but I think we get into trouble when we dismiss or diminish the power of sin. Again, my experience regularly confirms this in me, others, the world. Every day. Counteracting this with grace is what the Christian faith is all about. I get why people say Calvinists tend to overemphasize this one point of the faith, but these days in this culture, it feels like water from a mountain stream. Balancing.

 

[Pup7]

Most likely, to the average layperson, it isn’t. When I was a teen, someone asked a Calvinism vs. Arminianism question and we were told it wasn’t important. Just focus on our own salvation, glorify God with our lives and evangelize. It’s a bigger deal I suppose if you are more well-read, devout, and etc.

Whoa…as a former Methodist it was really important to us ( the C vs A debate) because we rejected Calvinism. I would say “it might depend on which Protestant denomination you’re talking about”. Methodism is far more in alignment with Arminianism.

Article from the UMC site (it explains the TULIP from Calvinism pretty well):

Do United Methodists believe "once saved, always saved?"

 

[SnowRose]

I agree, I was taught something similar.
(But Methodists, Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans are mostly hanging out at the same theological pool)
That we are saved by Jesus’ death&resurrection and our baptism, but that life’s challenges and temptations offers the risk of falling away. That pesky free will. And that if we do go astray, grace will always be offered to the returning repentant sinner.

 

[fhansen]

You have no idea how refreshing a defense of total depravity is to me. I don’t know that much about Calvin - I have never read him or much on his doctrine. But Catholics believe in the inherited guilt of original sin - an innate tendency of the human will to sin. My experience of humanity (mine and others) does tend to confirm this view. I don’t think it’s dark, just honest. To me, it is a starting point, right. This is precisely why we need God. You don’t stay in TD or original sin or innate tendency in my mind/heart, you are freed by grace, but I think we get into trouble when we dismiss or diminish the power of sin. Again, my experience regularly confirms this in me, others, the world. Every day. Counteracting this with grace is what the Christian faith is all about. I get why people say Calvinists tend to overemphasize this one point of the faith, but these days in this culture, it feels like water from a mountain stream. Balancing.

The Catholic Church teaches one cannot say “yes” to God without grace, that we’re totally unable to save ourselves, and totally unable to refrain from sin apart from communion with God, not because we inherited some warped “sin nature”, however, but simply because the chief characteristic of Original sin is separation from Him, “Apart from whom we can do nothing” John 15:5.

And yet…the difference is that, in Catholic teaching, we can still, always, say “no” to God, resisting grace, rejecting His overtures, either before any potential justification by refusing to turn to Him, or afterwards by turning back away from Him. As Augustine put it, "But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without you willing it.”

Taken as a whole, TULIP, with its limited atonement, double-predestination, absolute assurance of salvation, etc, is a sick little anti-Christian theology. Fortunately most Protestants don’t really practice it or live as if it’s true.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

It’s Christianity dumbed down

You just summed up Protestantism

 

[Wannano]

fhansen:

It’s Christianity dumbed down

You just summed up Protestantism

That is a dumb conclusion!

 

[Vico]

I’ve been reading the Babylon Bee (Christian news satire) and from that have learned about some Protestant issues like Calvinism vs Arminianism. Here’s how I understand it.

Both of them rely on total depravity. This means that man is corrupted by original sin, and even his free will is so corrupted that he couldn’t freely choose to follow God using his will alone. Only God’s grace can let him follow God.

So why doesn’t everyone follow God? This is where the two beliefs diverge.

Calvinism says that God’s grace is only offered to certain people, and everyone who is offered it will eventually be saved.

Arminianism says that God’s grace is offered to everyone, but that people can choose to reject it.

Now, this doesn’t really seem like a dilemma to me, but it’s apparently pretty important to Protestants. My question is why do they all accept that initial premise of total depravity?

The difference in the two is irresistible grace vs prevenient grace.

Double predestination is the belief that God actively chooses people for damnation and it was declared a heresy. (Double: in both damnation and salvation.)

Catholic dogma is against total depravity.

Council of Trent, Session VI

Canon I.

If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.

Cannon IV.

If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Canon V.

If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Taken as a whole, TULIP, with its limited atonement, double-predestination, absolute assurance of salvation, etc, is a sick little anti-Christian theology. Fortunately most Protestants don’t really practice it or live as if it’s true.

Great post. I agree with every word. Taken as a whole TULIP is a scandalous affront to the Christian faith. And, yes, it is a good thing that most Calvinist Protestants don’t understand or follow it. However, the Calvinists are also not alone in Christianity in terms of propagating theological scandal and moral sickness. Unfortunately.

 

[ATraveller]

I get why people say Calvinists tend to overemphasize this one point of the faith, but these days in this culture, it feels like water from a mountain stream. Balancing.

Same here. One has to find the balance and not tilt one way or the other. It’s not an either or situation.

I would say “it might depend on which Protestant denomination you’re talking about”.

Yup. It’s a bigger deal when it’s confessional or not. ‘Non-denominational’ or not. And it also depends on how interested one is in theology, its jargon and finer points. Anecdotally, I feel most are apathetic about the debate.
And even though they are treated as equivalents, many Calvinists reject OSAS.

Methodism is far more in alignment with Arminianism.

Most of it is. Same with its Holiness and Pentecostal descendants. Of course, there are Calvinist Methodists who are in the minority.

Great post. I agree with every word. Taken as a whole TULIP is a scandalous affront to the Christian faith. And, yes, it is a good thing that most Calvinist Protestants don’t understand or follow it.

But most do. And it gets complicated when some are 2.5 point or 4 point Calvinists. Plus TULIP wasn’t something Calvin himself developed.
The way I see it, the theological differences on soteriology are analogous, to some extent, to figuring out if it’s 1+3+3=7 or 1+4+2=7 or 1+6=7. Same answer but different details. Maybe it’s a bad comparison. But I’m failing find a better one.
Arminianism and Calvinism form a spectrum and most Evangelicals fall somewhere in between.

 

[Pup7]

Of course, there are Calvinist Methodists who are in the minority.

The term “Calvinist Methodist”, for some reason, always makes me chuckle as if - how is that possible? (I’m laughing, by the way. It sort of is an oxymoron in a way. The jumbo shrimp of the theological world, LOL.)

 

[ATraveller]

The dilemma I mean is monergism vs synergism. On one hand God doesn’t have total sovereignty since man doesn’t have to co-operate with Him, but on the other hand it would mean that some people are condemned from the moment they’re born.

As a Catholic, I don’t think the idea of God letting man have free will goes against His nature which is why I assume that if I was a Protestant I’d be an Arminian

This is where the disagreement occurs. Calvinists argue God has total sovereignty. John Calvin argued that when free will is present, it’s only within the boundaries set by the sinful nature of humans. It doesn’t mean people will be as depraved as possible but everything is tainted by sin.
This is how the Westminster Confession of Faith explains it:

Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and othersy) yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith;(z) nor are done in a right manner according to the Word;(a) nor to a right end, the glory of God;(b) they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God.(c) And yet, their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.(d)

II Kings 10:30, 31; I Kings 21:27, 29; Phil. 1:15, 16, 18.
(z) Gen. 4:5 with Heb. 11:4; Heb. 11:6.
(a) I Cor. 13:3; Isa. 1:12.
(b) Matt. 6:2, 5, 16.
(c) Hag. 2:14; Tit. 1:15; Amos 5:22, 23; Hosea 1:4; Rom. 9:16; Titus 3:5.
(d) Ps. 14:4; Ps. 36:3; Job 21:14, 15; Matt. 25:41, 42, 43, 45; Matt. 23:23.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) by Westminster Divines

Because of the Fall, humans are completely incapacitated. Only through God’s sovereign decision are the eyes of the elect opened to the Truth.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The way I see it, the theological differences on soteriology are analogous, to some extent, to figuring out if it’s 1+3+3=7 or 1+4+2=7 or 1+6=7. Same answer but different details. Maybe it’s a bad comparison. But I’m failing find a better one.
Arminianism and Calvinism form a spectrum and most Evangelicals fall somewhere in between.

Well, there is a wide spectrum among Catholics too - we commonly use words like liberal, conservative, progressive, orthodox. We profess unity in the same set of beliefs but in practice that doesn’t really seem to be the case. Different sides of the faith get emphasized to the point of division. Mercy vs doctrine/dogma is a good example - this is a surreal juxtaposition. By the time you are walking around with that vision of Christianity, something has gone wrong, really wrong. I am reading the Church Fathers, Arianism - this is very old, disputes over doctrine. I do think we moderns have managed to take it to a whole new level though.

 

[ATraveller]

Mercy vs doctrine/dogma is a good example

This really shouldn’t be a problem but some see mercy as permissiveness. I don’t see them as equivalent.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Right. Mercy is inherent in Christ’s teaching, by which I mean dogma of the Church. The road to mercy is through dogma - make that trying to live and witness dogma (‘truth’); that is actually ‘mercy’ or love in action, self-surrender, self-giving, breath of the Holy Spirit. Repentance, transformation. Mercy without dogma leads to permissiveness and spiritual blindness. We hear about harshness of judgment but never spiritual laxity, blindness, self-determining decked out as ‘mercy’. To my mind we lose more sheep to false mercy than harshness, for heaven’s sake. Back to my fondness for total depravity as an ever helpful and very timely reminder.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

But it’s not though.