[goldenchild]

Hey I thought we could throw some of our thoughts back and forth here. I don't know how to go about starting this, maybe the first one?

[Sean]

...so whats the question? You want to discuss "Total Depravity."

[goldenchild]

I had previously asked ICTHUS if he wanted to talk about each of the things. I'd like for just a limited amount of people to be involved for now, as I don't want things to get too confusing. But I'll let ICTHUS get on and decide what he wants to do before I continue.

[goldenchild]

ICTHUS if you want to make this a restricted participation conversation then that's cool with me too. Because I am pressed for time lately.

[ICTHUS]

I'm up for making this an RPD. However, since we don't actually have an RPD forum anymore, and barring someone getting mad at me for doing this, I'm going to sticky this thread so it doesn't get lost in the annals of Theology history if we don't reply to it for awhile.

[goldenchild]

Works for me. Umm, I don't really know where to start. Maybe start at the top of TULIP and work our way down. Or start with the one you believe to be the most important(maybe one that the others could depend on). Something like that.

[ICTHUS]

Okay then, I'll start by defining Total Depravity. I suck at defining things, so I'll draw on a definition from elsewhere.

Total Depravity (Total Inability)
Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.

The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).

The bolded parts are the parts of the definition you really need to worry about.

The principle texts from which this may be argued are as follows:

Genesis 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

The Hebrew word translated as 'surely die' is actually the Hebrew word for 'die' used twice, as Roman Catholic theologian Scott Hahn points out in his book "Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God". (You'll have to excuse me, as I am entirely unfamiliar with the Hebrew alef-beth, so I can't provide the actual word for you). Hence, a more apt translation might be 'you shall die the death'. The double usage of the word implies not only that they were rendered liable to physical death, but they were immediately cut off from spiritual life as well - their communion with God was killed the moment they ate the fruit. This spiritual death is passed on to Adam and Eve's children.

Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14. What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

St. Paul, in very strong terms, makes clear the nature of this imputed sin.

Romans 5:6

For when we were yet without strength (asthenes), in due time Christ died for the ungodly

Paul goes on to say, in v. 10, that we were God's enemies. Actually rebelling against God!

In the words of the Westminster Confession:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

So, then, all actual transgressions commited by men in the here and the now proceed from original sin, which makes us,

'utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good'

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 7:18. For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Colossians 1:21. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

'and wholly inclined to all evil'

Genesis 6:5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Romans 3:10-12. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

[goldenchild]

I will go through the post more fully later. I want to point out now that I am aware of what Dr. Scott Hahn says about the Hebrew and I fully agree with the translation. And I also believe that it is referring to an immediate spiritual death and later on a physical death.

Before I continue I want to ask more questions. Can someone who is dead to sin be changed? I believe that God is the one who does the spiritual regeneration within a person. Does a person have any choice in the matter? Can one accept or reject God's offer of grace? Or is Total Depravity attached to Predestination.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Before I continue I want to ask more questions. Can someone who is dead to sin be changed?

Do you mean dead in sin, or dead to sin? (The reason I ask is that all who are born again are dead to sin, all who are not are dead in sin) But anyway, yes, a person who is dead in sin can be changed. (The keyword here is 'be' changed - they do not change themselves or contribute to the work of Him who effects that change)

I believe that God is the one who does the spiritual regeneration within a person.

Good! However, all Roman Catholics would affirm this. Certainly, grace is necessary, but the difference between the Augustinian/Calvinist, and the Roman Catholic, is the sufficency of grace. Rome teaches us that we'd better not resist God's grace, or it will be ineffectual. Calvinists, with Calvin, Augustine, and St. Paul, hold that God is the sovereign power in salvation and is capable of overpowering the heart of a man who is His spiritual enemy, and that to wit, that heart would not come to God except that it be overpowered.

As Caedmon's Call sing "You're an army and a horse, and You have taken me by force".

The unregenerate man hates God in his heart. He wants nothing more than to supress the Truth about God (Romans 1) and, whether he realizes it or not, God's wrath rests upon him. He is, in St. Pauls words in Ephesians, by nature a child of wrath (2:3)

Does a person have any choice in the matter?

Define 'choice'. Certainly, the person chooses to accept God's gracious offer of forgiveness, but they would not do so apart from God's 'opening their heart' (see the account of Lydia's conversion) and securing their faith by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

Can one accept or reject God's offer of grace?

Yes, and sadly, many do reject it. However, God must first grant the grace to accept the grace (of justification, and subsequent covenantal adoption.) Apart from God quickening the hearts of those who are dead in sin and children of wrath, no one would come to faith.

Or is Total Depravity attached to Predestination.

Insofar as men are elected from amongst those who would otherwise be part of what St. Augustine called the 'massa damnata' ('mass of the damned'), the totally depraved (or, 'totally unable', to use Boettner's expression) human race owe their salvation, if it occurs, entirely to God's saving perogative in foreknowing, electing, calling, justifying, and glorifying, His Saints (Romans 8:28-31), and never their own efforts.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Do you mean dead in sin, or dead to sin? (The reason I ask is that all who are born again are dead to sin, all who are not are dead in sin) But anyway, yes, a person who is dead in sin can be changed.

IN sin is what I meant thanks.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

(The keyword here is 'be' changed - they do not change themselves or contribute to the work of Him who effects that change)

We both agree on this. However, I think I am different in that I believe the sacraments are ministers(in a sense) of the grace, and that the sacraments(especially baptism in this discussion) always "change" the person.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Good! However, all Roman Catholics would affirm this. Certainly, grace is necessary, but the difference between the Augustinian/Calvinist, and the Roman Catholic, is the sufficency of grace. Rome teaches us that we'd better not resist God's grace, or it will be ineffectual.

The Catholic Church teaches that we have the free will to resist God's grace, yes.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Calvinists, with Calvin, Augustine, and St. Paul, hold that God is the sovereign power in salvation and is capable of overpowering the heart of a man who is His spiritual enemy, and that to wit, that heart would not come to God except that it be overpowered.

Is there any other simpler way to explain that? I believe also that God is the sovereign power in salvation. I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual enemy". And I believe that only God can win over a person's heart. But I believe also that a person has free will and that God does not force a person to love Him.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

The unregenerate man hates God in his heart. He wants nothing more than to supress the Truth about God (Romans 1) and, whether he realizes it or not, God's wrath rests upon him. He is, in St. Pauls words in Ephesians, by nature a child of wrath (2:3)

Okay... I'll think about this. I've never really gotten into this type of conversation enough to really know how the Church explains it.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Define 'choice'. Certainly, the person chooses to accept God's gracious offer of forgiveness, but they would not do so apart from God's 'opening their heart' (see the account of Lydia's conversion) and securing their faith by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

So can they choose to accept this grace or can they reject it?

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Yes, and sadly, many do reject it. However, God must first grant the grace to accept the grace (of justification, and subsequent covenantal adoption.) Apart from God quickening the hearts of those who are dead in sin and children of wrath, no one would come to faith.

Okay so you're saying that one can reject the Grace God gives a person, but that they can't reject it until He offers it to them? Fair enough, I believe as such. However, I also believe that every single person is offered the grace of God for salvation. Here I think we separate.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Insofar as men are elected from amongst those who would otherwise be part of what St. Augustine called the 'massa damnata' ('mass of the damned'), the totally depraved (or, 'totally unable', to use Boettner's expression) human race owe their salvation, if it occurs, entirely to God's saving perogative in foreknowing, electing, calling, justifying, and glorifying, His Saints (Romans 8:28-31), and never their own efforts.

Okay. It may be a bit before I come back with a decent response to all of this. I'm still learning how all this works myself.

[goldenchild]

I should point out that I believe St. Augustine adhered to my side of this. But that is probably not necessary to discuss right now.

[goldenchild]

I'm taking this really slow so as to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting the Catholic side of this. I hope you don't mind. Here's a quote that helps describe the Catholic view of Total Depravity.


Ludwig Ott wrote, concerning the Fall, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 {orig. 1952}, tr. Patrick Lynch):

The Reformers.....admitted the reality of original sin, but misunderstood its essence its operation, since they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts completely human nature.....

Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers.....taught, in 'The habitual concupiscence, which remains, even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned for punishment.' The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving is called sin in an improper sense only. That sin remains in man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and renewal........

The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good actions.....Man, with his natural power of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or extinguished by the fall of Adam. {pp. 108,110,112-113}

[goldenchild]

Some more interesting things that I have found... I really hope you don't mind me using these. I just really can't explain them myself yet until I've gotten enough experience reading through this stuff...

Total depravity

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love [9].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term "total depravity" to describe the doctrine [10], he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so [11].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere [12].

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

I have a thing like this for every section of TULIP, but I'll post them one at a time as we move through this.

[goldenchild]

The more I read, the more it seems as if Catholicism and Calvinism are actually pretty similar in the whole TULIP deal. But let's take it slowly so we don't miss anything. Of course their are many differences, but it's more similar than I could've imagined going into this.

[ICTHUS]

You'll have to excuse me, my equals key isn't working...gah..

The keyword here is 'be' changed - they do not change themselves or contribute to the work of Him who effects that change

Originally Posted by goldenchild

We both agree on this. However, I think I am different in that I believe the sacraments are ministers(in a sense) of the grace, and that the sacraments(especially baptism in this discussion) always "change" the person.

I, too, believe that the Sacraments are ministers of grace. However, where we disagree is the automatic (ex opere operato) operation of the Sacraments. I'd like, if I could, to keep from discussing the effects of baptism for now (though I recognize that it is intrinsically important to the discussion at hand) - suffice it to say, though, that we both agree, whether at baptism or afterwards, by an act of faith, that it is God's perogative when a person comes to faith, and that they nowise contribute to Him who effects that grace? (If you answer that they do contribute by assenting or co-operating with that grace, then you affirm a form of semi-pelagianism by adding the work of man's co-operation to God's grace)

Good! However, all Roman Catholics would affirm this. Certainly, grace is necessary, but the difference between the Augustinian/Calvinist, and the Roman Catholic, is the sufficency of grace. Rome teaches us that we'd better not resist God's grace, or it will be ineffectual.

The Catholic Church teaches that we have the free will to resist God's grace, yes

Well, then two things have to be noted about your position.

1. It makes man, not God, the final author of his salvation. If God gives an equal amount of grace to some people, and some people reject it, that must mean that there is something intrinsically better in the man who accepts it - is he more intelligent? More spiritual? More broken-hearted or poor in spirit? No, but the Scriptures teach that all are gone astray, all are God's enemies, and all children of wrath (Eph 2:3). In the final analysis, Rome's insistance that we contribute to our salvation by assenting to grace means that we are saved by works, at least partially. But Paul rules out this possibility when he says

Rom 11:5-6

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[c]

Romans 9:16-18

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

2. It makes the grace of God ineffectual without the contribution of the will of man, thus affirming a form of semi-Pelagianism, and directly opposing Augustinianism.

Is there any other simpler way to explain that?

I'm not sure what part you failed to understand?

I believe also that God is the sovereign power in salvation.

That's a start, however, I believe we may be defining 'sovereign power' differently. You seem to put a restriction on God's sovereignty that He can't save a person who hates Him (as all men do, before they are regenerated)

I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual enemy". And I believe that only God can win over a person's heart.

By "spiritual enemy" I mean the following things, all derived from the word of Holy Scripture

We are enemies of God (Rom 5:10)

We supress the Truth about God, though it is known to us (Romans 1)

We are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-10)

We are controlled by the flesh, which cannot submit to God (Romans 7-8)

But I believe also that a person has free will and that God does not force a person to love Him

Define 'force'. I would posit that without the Holy Spirit forcefully quickening the dead, stony hearts of unregenerate men, no one would be a Christian!

Define 'choice'. Certainly, the person chooses to accept God's gracious offer of forgiveness, but they would not do so apart from God's 'opening their heart' (see the account of Lydia's conversion) and securing their faith by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

So can they choose to accept this grace or can they reject it?

Well, on the surface, yes. However, because they cannot, apart from God quickening and enlivening their hearts, believe the Gospel.

The key thing to remember is that for the Calvinist, God's grace does not merely make possible our co-operation in faith, it secures it, because otherwise we would resist it, because it is in our nature to supress the Truth - thus any assent to God's Truth would be impossible, apart from God's securing our co-operation.

Okay so you're saying that one can reject the Grace God gives a person, but that they can't reject it until He offers it to them?

No. What I'm saying is that a person can (and will, in fact, of necessity) reject the Gospel (not the grace to believe it) offered through the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, unless God gives them grace to overpower their desire to hold down the truth in unrighteousness. Think of it like an atom (I presume you're familiar with the theoretical physics behind atoms at the subatomic level?). There are forces in the atom which are at equilibrium - an atomic expansion force as a result of repulsion between protons in the atom that constantly threatens to rip the atom apart, and an attraction force that keeps the atom together and counterbalanaces the repulsion force. If one wanted to rip the atom apart, one would need to forcefully overcome (say, by shooting a proton into the atom, as in a nuclear fission reaction) the nuclear attraction force - because otherwise, the atom just won't explode - the attraction forces in the atom prevent that.

Fair enough, I believe as such. However, I also believe that every single person is offered the grace of God for salvation. Here I think we separate

As I demonstrated above, I don't think that is the case, otherwise all men would be saved.