What's so important about total depravity?

[Flopfoot]

So man can never do good even when he does things that are good on the surface. Now you mention it I do remember learning about early Protestants developing this idea. It seems contradictory to everyone else’s idea of “good”

 

[Flopfoot]

Thinking of the story of the widow’s penny, if someone’s free will is limited by original sin, but they give all they can from it to God, isn’t that more than what’s given by someone whose free will isn’t limited?

 

[Flopfoot]

Feel free to ignore my half-woken-up ramblings if they don’t make sense. I appreciate you sharing your theology anyway

 

[JonNC]

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?

Having been raised Lutheran, I always understood it as the opposite of Pelagianism, that free will is only in terms of our ability to reject grace, not seek it out on our own.

 

[JonNC]

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

Exactly. This is another thread which proves that, when it comes to doctrine and practice, use of the term “protestant” is folly.

 

[Seagull]

I would never read something called The Babylon Bee ?
Sounds worse than a supermarket tabloid -
Satire ?
Sounds like Voltaire rehashed - lol

 

[Vonsalza]

And even though they are treated as equivalents, many Calvinists reject OSAS.

Just wanted to point out that this is true only if they merely self-identify as “Calvinists”. The “P” in TULIP is “Perseverance of the Saints” which means that once one comes into the body of Christ, they so endure. In short, this is referred to as “OSAS”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Flopfoot:

…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…

Indeed, Calvinism has had to back-up quite a bit from the early days of us all being born “enemies of God”. Or at least, they’ve had to pull all the teeth from that kind of language.

Non-Christians dying for others is what broke Total Depravity for me. In the words of the Savior Himself, what greater love is there? Ergo the ultimate sacrificial act is void of any sort of depravity.

This means the Arminian understanding of it is substantially more true, even as it makes Total Depravity a theoretical state that never actually existed because God then immediately regenerated man to the point he could exercise will under “prevenient grace”, which was a carry-over from Catholic theology.

 

[ltwin]

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?

Because Arminianism developed out of Calvinism. Both Calvinists and Arminians want to make clear that humans are helpless to merit salvation on their own. They see Catholicism as teaching something different.

Arminians, though, want to distance themselves from the suggestion that God arbitrarily saves some and damns others. They don’t see this as biblical, but they do see total depravity as biblical. Therefore, Arminianism is an attempt to affirm total depravity and a general atonement – that God offers all people the gift of salvation.

 

[lanman87]

Indeed, Calvinism has had to back-up quite a bit from the early days of us all being born “enemies of God”. Or at least, they’ve had to pull all the teeth from that kind of language.

Non-Christians dying for others is what broke Total Depravity for me. In the words of the Savior Himself, what greater love is there? Ergo the ultimate sacrificial act is void of any sort of depravity.

One thing to keep in mind is that total depravity doesn’t mean totally evil. It doesn’t mean lack of moral behavior, love, or affection. Even the most hardcore Calvinist will say that people have the ability and do make moral choices and that sometimes those choices do great good for humanity.

What total depravity really means is “total inability”. That while we can be moral and even, on an emotional or intellectual level, have a form of godliness. However, no matter how moral or “spiritual” we may be we don’t have the ability to “convert ourselves”. Our free will doesn’t give us the ability to “choose Christ”. Instead, what happens is that God changes our will so that we do choose Christ. God changes our desires and affections for Christ and that is why we choose to become followers of Christ. The real difference between Calvin and Arminianism is that in Calvinism when God’s Grace changes our desires and affections we will always choose Christ. Under Arminian theology, God’s grace doesn’t change our desires and affections, instead it influences our desires and affections. Therefore, because our desires aren’t changed, only influenced, we have the ability to say “no thanks” to God’s gift of Faith and choose “to be born again” or not.

This is the thought behind the Grace Alone theology. We come to faith in Christ by Grace Alone, not by our efforts, goodness, spirituality, religious traditions, cultural morality or even religious zeal. And when we Choose to follow Christ it is only because God’s grace has not only given us the ability to follow Christ but also given us the desire to follow Christ.

 

[AugustTherese]

Our free will doesn’t give us the ability to “choose Christ”

And when we Choose to follow Christ

So…

What do ya think?

 

[Vonsalza]

One thing to keep in mind is that total depravity doesn’t mean totally evil.

Yup. Well aware. A common stand-in for “depravity” during Calvin’s time was “corruption”.

The very best acts of man will display some element of taint or corruption in the sight of God.

But since there is no greater love than when a man lays down his life for another, it doesn’t seem to be a condition that exists. Or, at least, it doesn’t apply to all of humanity. Which would mean that the totality is impaired in some way Calvin didn’t foresee or it’s only theoretical, not actual (as amended by Arminius and prevenient grace).

Our free will doesn’t give us the ability to “choose Christ”.

Then you’re not talking about “free will”. You’re talking about some lesser, impaired will.

Unfortunately, this appears to conflict with Paul’s ceaseless appeals for folks to come to Christ. “Choose Christ” is exactly what he wanted them to do. At least Arminius’s Total Depravity gives them the ability to do that. Calvin’s total depravity naturally begs one to ask “why appeal to them? They’ll come or they won’t on God’s own desire.”

This is the thought behind the Grace Alone theology. We come to faith in Christ by Grace Alone, not by our efforts, goodness, spirituality, religious traditions, cultural morality or even religious zeal.

There’s some truth there, but let’s remember Luther’s “Epistle of Straw” - James. Faith without works is dead. So again, “Grace Alone” seems to exist only in theory, not in practice.

 

[lanman87]

Then you’re not talking about “free will”. You’re talking about some lesser, impaired will.

That is basically what Luther taught in “Bondage of the Will” and later Jonathan Edwards taught in “Freedom of the will”. I had a reformed preacher tell me once that is is interesting that they used opposite titles of their books when the books both argue the same thing. That man’s free will is not really free, it is under bondage to sin and naturally desires selfish things, and doesn’t have the ability to choose Christ without God’s grace “freeing the will”.

 

[lanman87]

So…

What do ya think?

I think it is a wonderful thing that people come to Christ and live for Him. In the long run, whether that is by irresistible grace or prevenient grace, is not as important as the fact that people actually have faith in Christ.

 

[Vonsalza]

I replied but it must be approved by our betters.

Essentially, it’s that if the will is not free and those who come to salvation only come by God’s capricious selection, then those in hell are there simply because God arbitrarily refused to save them from sin their parents commissioned them to inevitably and invariably commit through the fall.

In a sense, it’s like you killing a Greek man locked in your basement for not saying “sorry” in English and you refused to teach him the word in the first place.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Then you’re not talking about “free will”. You’re talking about some lesser, impaired will.

That is basically what Luther taught in “Bondage of the Will” and later Jonathan Edwards taught in “Freedom of the will”. I had a reformed preacher tell me once that is is interesting that they used opposite titles of their books when the books both argue the same thing. That man’s free will is not really free, it is under bondage to sin and naturally desires selfish things, and doesn’t have the ability to choose Christ without God’s grace “freeing the will”.

Sure. And the counter to that is that a God that would damn those He didn’t call (and could not come to Him without that call) is an unjust and evil God.

Since, by rule, no one deserves God’s Mercy and Grace, those who are elected are merely capricious selections by a God who chooses who He’ll save and who He’ll damn through electoral abstinence.

“For God so loved the world…”

 

[ATraveller]

The “P” in TULIP is “Perseverance of the Saints” which means that once one comes into the body of Christ, they so endure. In short, this is referred to as “OSAS”.

It’s true that’s where it’s derived from. But the problem is OSAS is often isolated by some. Sanctification is sometimes not emphasised or even omitted by some. It’s a nice catchy line but prone for misunderstanding.

 

[JonNC]

So again, “Grace Alone” seems to exist only in theory, not in practice.

Is there another way we come to salvation other than by grace? If not, we are saved by grace. We can differ regarding faith and works, but whether one believes in justification by faith alone, or by faith and works, or by faith working through love, it is only possible by grace. Therefore, by grace only, by grace alone

 

[Vonsalza]

It still requires the free assent of the saved, Jon. And if this assent can only be given as a result of more grace, then we create a situation where the only folks that can gain heaven are those God chooses, which makes God capricious and unjust in those He condemns to hell because it would have been literally impossible for them to choose otherwise.

Of course, that’s all nonsense since Irresistible Grace is very easily the weakest of TULIP’s petals from a scriptural standpoint…

Im with you that salvation is by grace. It’s just the “alone” nonsense that reformers keep trying to add to scripture that irks both me and the writer of that epistle Luther tried to get tossed out.

 

[JonNC]

It still requires the free assent of the saved, Jon. And if this assent can only be given as a result of more grace, then we create a situation where the only folks that can gain heaven are those God chooses, which makes God capricious and unjust in those He condemns to hell because it would have been literally impossible for them to choose otherwise.

No argument, though the point is that the free assent is impossible without grace, and where we probably agree is that Christ’s passion , death and resurrection is grace for the whole world, not just some.

Of course, that’s all nonsense since Irresistible Grace is very easily the weakest of TULIP’s petals from a scriptural standpoint…

From the above I would have thought you would say limited atonement is the weakest. I would say they are all weak except for the “T”.

Im with you that salvation is by grace. It’s just the “alone” nonsense that reformers keep trying to add to scripture that irks both me and the writer of that epistle Luther tried to get tossed out.

Again, if grace is not the only source of salvation, please name the other source. The “alone” simply states that without grace no one is saved. Faith is not possible, good works are not possible. Grace alone makes salvation possible for all.

As for Luther, I have heard this “Luther tried to toss out James” here for a decade. No one has ever produced a Luther quote to that effect. Do you have one?