Thread: Is Humanity Totally Depraved? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024557
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
In a recent post to the thread: “Should the Cross be the Church’s symbol?”, Mudfrog, invited us to consider the Salvation Army’s Doctrinal Statement. In its teaching on the nature of Man (presumably Humankind) it stated the following:
“Our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience, they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall, all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.” It later expresses a belief in “the eternal happiness of the righteous, and in the endless punishment of the wicked.”
I wonder to what extent other Shipmates share these sentiments, especially the notion that all men (and, presumably, women) are “totally depraved” (including, presumably, newborn infants), and whether persons in such a condition, identical to that of Satan, are capable of responding positively to grace. I wonder, too, how strong is the biblical support for such a position, let alone its credibility in the light of the biological evolution of the species.
I must emphasise that this is not to get at the Salvation Army, which treats the marginalised more as “the sons and daughters of God” than “the totally depraved”, but as a means of discussing the credibility of aspects of evangelicanism.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Firstly I have to object to the unwarranted and rather presumptuous comment that the condition of 'total depravity' is, in your phrase 'identical to that of Satan'. I reject that notion entirely.
Secondly, you are going to have to do better with your question. You are, it seems to me, going to have to define exactly what you mean by total depravity, seeing that you are implying that you do not agree with it.
Once you have given us your definition, then we can discuss whether we agree with it or not. My definition - which is that of both Wesleyan and Calvinistic thinking, and not just The Salvation Army, I must say - will follow in response to the posting of your definition.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I don't know what was understood by the term 'total depravity' when it was coined, but it certainly gives a misleading connotation now and should be abandoned IMO.
As I understand it, it simply meant that there was no aspect of life that is not affected by sin, but I wait to be enlightened.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
As I understand it, it simply meant that there was no aspect of life that is not affected by sin, but I wait to be enlightened.
That's my understanding. I also am under the impression that it was coined in contrast to some medieval theologians and philosophers who maintained that there was a part of the human being, usually the reason, which was not tainted, was somehow uncontaminated by sin.
I can see why people find it misleading. If it meant what Kwesi is accusing it of meaning, we would be unable to respond to grace. But I think we're stuck with it as a technical term unless someone can both come up with a better and persuade the entire theological community to adopt it.
Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on
:
I have had a hard day. Can I have a night off from being totally depraved and just watch TV, please?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
I have had a hard day. Can I have a night off from being totally depraved and just watch TV, please?
A sure sign of depravity. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I would tend to not go with the religious folks on understanding this one. They tend to be guilt ridden to excess, with excessive focus on their evil sinful ways. Or happily making excuses, while they cast what is actually evil as good.
I will start with Carl Sagan, who had it said in his novel Contact: "You're an interesting species, an interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone. Only you're not. "
I will also note that telling us we're depraved and needing of the answer allows us to be controlled by those who say they can answer it. Yet the message is allegedly supposed to be one of Love. A great disconnect here. It's written in the scriptures, it's written there in blood,
I even heard the angels declare it from above. There ain't no cure, there ain't no cure, there ain't no cure for love. (Leonard Cohen). Love is written in blood, but not because it is a sacrifice for anyone's depraved benefit. Rather because love that's too much is hideous for this world and must be killed, as it does not fit. You can't drag heaven into hell nor into the world.
I find that the polarity of the killing of Jesus, and the reason being his love, explains a lot about how life, the world and us in it operates. I also find I cannot find it in doctrine or in statements of churches. Maybe it's also the stark beauty of a day at -35°C when skiing through the bush and watching the coyotes eating the half frozen deer, which is both necessary and thus okay, and also awful in terms of what the animal suffered when brought down: some coyotes usually hang on the neck and throat, suffocating the deer, while the others start eating its intestines and soft belly organs before it dies. So we're not depraved, we just live in a creation that has both goodness and evil available, and freedom and freewill are part of its fabric.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
If most people were not good, social animals, society would not work at all.
99% of people I meet in everyday life are good folks, not depraved at all. The 1% are not depraved either - just damaged by life and struggling to love others.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
You see? There is confusion already between those who see depravity as a technical, theological term, those who see it as life affected by sin, and those who think it's being equal to Satan and means that people have nothing 'good' in them.
I think I would agree that in a post-KJV world that no longer recognises the accuracy of words but has ascribed new meanings to them, that depravity is not a good word to use in a non-theological setting.
The mid-nineteenth century language of the Salvation Army doctrine states: 'Our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience, they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall, all men (yes, humanity) have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.'
You would expect language like that from the nineteenth century. It is also theologically accurate even if not now particularly 'user-friendly'.
The version that is printed for children (!) and which I have used in a public leaflet and is useful also for people who have English as a second language, states
quote:
'Our first parents, by their disobedience. lost their sense of God's favour, and came under the power of sin; and because of this we are all inclined to do wrong.'
This, I think is gentler, less startling, is less likely to be misunderstood and avoids using the 'D' word which, when used today would be appropriate mostly when describing a child abductor!
And yet it says the same thing:
Total depravity simply means 'we are all inclined to do wrong.'
It is that inclination that is tainted by sin. Even the good in us will often be tinged with self-interest or pride. And if there is something that we do that is entirely pure in motive and in our action, there is something else in us that we would rather not reveal - showing that not one of us can say we are not a sinner.
We have all fallen short of the glory of God, and as Isaiah reminds us (not that we didn't know already), 'all our righteousness is as a filthy rag.'
To my mind the doctrine of total depravity is merely stating the obvious - it doesn't need to be preached because we all know it! There is not one person on this planet who has never felt regret, guilt, shame and weakness - the inability to live a totally pure and blameless life. Why? because we, being 'totally depraved' have come under the power of sin and 'are all inclined to do wrong.'
The church's task is simply to say 'there is abundant forgiveness, redemption, healing, grace and the offer of freedom from the hopelessness of sin.'
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
You ask me to define “total depravity,” and why it might describe Satan.
Total means 100 per cent, completely.
Depravity: The state of being depraved.
Synonyms of Depravity include: evil, sinfulness, viciousness, wickedness, criminality, debauchery etc.
A totally depraved person might be seen as totally evil, totally sinful, totally wicked, totally debauched. Such as state seems to me a pretty good definition of the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub or whatever.
While I would agree that people are sinful, the consequences of which cause pain and sorrow to themselves, others and their heavenly father, from which humanity needs to be saved both individually and collectively, to describe humanity as “totally depraved” seems at variance with the incarnation, let alone the empirical evidence.
As I said at the outset, Mudfrog, I did not seek to single out the Salvation Army for implied criticism, it was just that your invitation to read its doctrinal position that kicked me off.
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
[quote]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To my mind the doctrine of total depravity is merely stating the obvious - it doesn't need to be preached because we all know it! There is not one person on this planet who has never felt regret, guilt, shame and weakness - the inability to live a totally pure and blameless life. Why? because we, being 'totally depraved' have come under the power of sin and 'are all inclined to do wrong.'[quote]
Does not the fact that people feel regret, guilt and shame take the 'total' out of total depravity?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Right, read my latest posting, put away your 2013 dictionary and read the doctrine again assuming that the words used there are theological, technical terms, and the the word usage of The Sun when it's describing the Moors Murderers.
This is Wesleyan and Calvinist doctrine - it's actually Augustinian!
Totally does not mean 100% - unless you mean 100% of the person is affected by sin. It does not mean 100% evil!
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I accept total depravity, in the sense that noting is uncorrupted. However that is not the same as saying everything is totally rotten. In the words of the Brian Wren hymn
quote:
You living likeness still we bear
Though marred, dishonoured, disobeyed
or the Iona Affirmation
quote:
I affirm God's goodness at the heart of humanity,
planted more deeply than all that is wrong,
with all creation
To not acknowledge this deep rooting in God is to say the evil has victory. Rather it is like the parable of the wheat and the tares in the same field. There is tares there but there is also wheat and at this time we can't separate one from the other. The mixing runs so deep that it runs through the smallest grain, but it is still a mix and in the end because God is God, the wheat will be harvested.
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The word total describes the extent of sin, not the depth.
Sin has touched every part of me - even slightly.
It does not mean that every part of me is 100% evil!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I accept total depravity, in the sense that noting is uncorrupted. However that is not the same as saying everything is totally rotten. In the words of the Brian Wren hymn
quote:
You living likeness still we bear
Though marred, dishonoured, disobeyed
or the Iona Affirmation
quote:
I affirm God's goodness at the heart of humanity,
planted more deeply than all that is wrong,
with all creation
To not acknowledge this deep rooting in God is to say the evil has victory. Rather it is like the parable of the wheat and the tares in the same field. There is tares there but there is also wheat and at this time we can't separate one from the other. The mixing runs so deep that it runs through the smallest grain, but it is still a mix and in the end because God is God, the wheat will be harvested.
Jengie
Thank you, I like that explanation.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Something that would be quite interesting to know, is whether,
a. 'depraved' has changed its meaning over the centuries, become more lurid; or
b. It always was a slightly overblown phrase but was chosen deliberately by theologians keen to get people to recognise how serious their own sin was, rather like those countries that call underage sex 'statutory rape'.
Kwesi, I'd still disagree with
quote:
Synonyms of Depravity include: evil, sinfulness, viciousness, wickedness, criminality, debauchery etc.
Those strike me as some of the symptoms of depravity.
I suspect we may need a new term. Currently, 'depravity' is an ordinary word which has a different technical meaning in theological circles from what it has come to mean in ordinary speech.
'Totally contaminated by an all encompassing permeation of a predilection to sin' is possibly less misleading, but that is 12 words, not 2.
'Totally corrupted' might have been a possibility, if 'corrupt' wasn't for most people so specifically linked to taking bribes.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I mentioned Wesleyanism and Calvinism. I said that actually it goes back to Augustine. Of course it goes back to Scripture and to God himself, but I was interested to read what the Church of England teaches about sin in Article 9:
quote:
(Sin) is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
You ask me to define “total depravity,” and why it might describe Satan.
Total means 100 per cent, completely.
Depravity: The state of being depraved.
Synonyms of Depravity include: evil, sinfulness, viciousness, wickedness, criminality, debauchery etc.
A totally depraved person might be seen as totally evil, totally sinful, totally wicked, totally debauched. Such as state seems to me a pretty good definition of the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub or whatever.
If that were true there would be nothing worth 'saving' and God would have been better off binning creation rather than dieing to redeem it.
So the answer to the question in the OP has to be: No!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
'Totally contaminated by an all encompassing permeation of a predilection to sin' is possibly less misleading, but that is 12 words, not 2.
'Totally corrupted' might have been a possibility, if 'corrupt' wasn't for most people so specifically linked to taking bribes.
'all inclined to do wrong' is still good ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
So the answer to the question in the OP has to be: No!
But only if you subscribe to Kwesi's definition.
If you subscribe to the church's definition of 'everyone tainted in every part' and all 'inclined to do wrong' then even one's own experience would have to agree with it; yes we are all sinners, 'totally depraved', even though there is beauty and goodness and love and compassion and all sorts of other godly virtues within us.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
So the answer to the question in the OP has to be: No!
But only if you subscribe to Kwesi's definition.
If you subscribe to the church's definition of 'everyone tainted in every part' and all 'inclined to do wrong' then even one's own experience would have to agree with it; yes we are all sinners, 'totally depraved', even though there is beauty and goodness and love and compassion and all sorts of other godly virtues within us.
I was just thinking that it goes back to the knowledge of good and evil bit and that being either none or total- like being pregnant.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
So the answer to the question in the OP has to be: No!
But only if you subscribe to Kwesi's definition.
If you subscribe to the church's definition of 'everyone tainted in every part' and all 'inclined to do wrong' then even one's own experience would have to agree with it; yes we are all sinners, 'totally depraved', even though there is beauty and goodness and love and compassion and all sorts of other godly virtues within us.
I was just thinking that it goes back to the knowledge of good and evil bit and that being either none or total- like being pregnant.
LOL, yes I always find it amusing when soemone says they are 'very pregnant'. It's as if there are stages of being pregnant or not. One is pregnant 100% 3 minutes after conception. One is equally pregnant 3 minutes before labour begins.
One is 100% a sinner even if one has never committed a crime. It's the inclination that is sinful whether or not the actions follow.
One wonders, if we are not 'totally depraved' why did Christ die? If we have the capacity merely to choose to be good, then as the other religions teach, let's just try harder!
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Christ died because he was incarnated.
Christ died in the way he did because some evil men conspired with the Roman authorities to have him killed.
Christ's life, death, and resurrection demonstrated the nature of God and his purposes for humanity,
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I seem to remember Chesterton writing somewhere that Original Sin is the only dogma susceptible of empirical demonstration.
Or as Lewis put it: "You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth".
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
To what extent does the doctrine of total depravity necessarily lead to a doctrine of predestination/election? Some people here might accept the description of total depravity being offered here, but not its logical consequence.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
One difference between Jesus and Paul was that Jesus thought that "you could if you would" whilst Paul operated on the principle that you "would if you could but you can't".
In other words Jesus located the source of sin in the will whereas Paul saw its source in human nature itself.
Mudfrog is Pauline. As was Augustine and Calvin et al.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
To what extent does the doctrine of total depravity necessarily lead to a doctrine of predestination/election?
It doesn't.
What it does lead to is the conclusion that divine grace is essential for human beings' restoration to right relationship with God.
Fortunately the Bible teaches that God loves all people, that Christ died for all people, that salvation is genuinely offered to all people, that God wants all people to be saved, and that - as Muddy pointed out in the thread from which this one sprang - prevenient grace is universally available to enable anyone and everyone to accept the gift of salvation.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
I have had a hard day. Can I have a night off from being totally depraved and just watch TV, please?
That would be the sin of sloth. See, even on a night off we're still being totally depraved! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
One difference between Jesus and Paul was that Jesus thought that "you could if you would" whilst Paul operated on the principle that you "would if you could but you can't".
In other words Jesus located the source of sin in the will whereas Paul saw its source in human nature itself.
Mudfrog is Pauline. As was Augustine and Calvin et al.
I don't think Paul should be read that way rather "you could if you would but we struggle with our nature, but thanks to Christ we have/can/will" (where the have/can/will states exisit all at the same time).
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
In strict theological terms, "total" depravity means that, without the intervention of God's grace, sin affects every area of a person's being, but not that they are incapable of doing anything good.
Being completely corrupted and incapable of any good whatsoever is not "total" but "utter depravity". Does that help at all? I don't think anyone's arguing that people are utterly depraved.
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
@Mudfrog
If you are merely saying that an inclination towards sin is an inherent part of human nature, I would agree with you. In which case, I would also agree with Enoch, that something other than'total depravity' would better describe it.
That term is generally associated with classical Calvinism, where it is usually described in a far stronger way than this recognition of inclination.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
A large proportion of Christian doctrine down the Centuries has been to pedal the notion that humanity is depraved and can only be remedied by Christ.
Despite going to church, and experimenting with the Christian faith I don't agree with this at all. Therefore would not use it as an evangelising tool , (not that I'm an evangelist anyway).
Many ancient communities were peaceful, loving and joyful prior to Christianity showing up and sowing it's seeds of angst.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
As I understand it, it simply meant that there was no aspect of life that is not affected by sin, but I wait to be enlightened.
I think we're stuck with it as a technical term unless someone can both come up with a better and persuade the entire theological community to adopt it.
How about Pervasive Depravity?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
One difference between Jesus and Paul was that Jesus thought that "you could if you would" whilst Paul operated on the principle that you "would if you could but you can't".
In other words Jesus located the source of sin in the will whereas Paul saw its source in human nature itself.
Mudfrog is Pauline. As was Augustine and Calvin et al.
Bearing in mind that Jesus was talking to people who, being under the old covenant, simply had to fulfil its requirements. Keep the Torah and you will live.
We are now in the age of grace where it's a little bit harder?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
In strict theological terms, "total" depravity means that, without the intervention of God's grace, sin affects every area of a person's being, but not that they are incapable of doing anything good.
Being completely corrupted and incapable of any good whatsoever is not "total" but "utter depravity". Does that help at all? I don't think anyone's arguing that people are utterly depraved.
I like that .
I was strggling to find the word that expressed what some were saying about being so depraved thet were 'satanic' - 'utter' is an excellent word.
Yes, there is no suggestion that any person has ever been 'utterly' depraved.
I would also like to inject the opposite to 'total depravity' in Wesleyan thought: 'entire sanctification.'
If our depravity is total in the sense that it extends to every part, then 'entire' sanctification speaks of the wholeness and purity that is given which also extends 'entirely' to every part of the body, soul and spirit.
It isn't that we are made utterly holy - 'angelic' perfection perhaps p- but that 'today' the grace of God has reached every part of my being and has begun to change me.
As Wesley wrote, 'changed from glory into glory till in Heaven we take our place...'
This then is the Gospel that TSA will preach - that God can take all that we are, totally influenced by sin, and redeem us, transform us, make us anew so that his grace we can be entirely made holy.
To me, that is the most wonderful, life-affirming, hope-giving, love experiencing message that we can give.
That God can completely change our lives where no change ever seemed possible.
Love lifted me,
Love lifted me,
When no one but Christ could help
Love lifted me...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
If you are merely saying that an inclination towards sin is an inherent part of human nature, I would agree with you. In which case, I would also agree with Enoch, that something other than'total depravity' would better describe it.
That's the way I would put it too.
It is nothing more than an inclination to pay more attention to the demands of worldly and bodily interests than heavenly ones.
So we are inclined: - To rest rather than work
- To keep rather than to share
- To value comfort, possessions, and the high regard of others more than service and the well being of all
- To be drawn by our sexual interests rather than prioritize stable loving relationships.
- To work hard to serve our interests rather than to serve God
- To be skeptical or angry about anything that we perceive as opposing our interests.
Happily we are not necessarily ruled by those inclinations, but we have them.
I would call this our hereditary inclinations to evil, not total depravity. It is hereditary because different inclinations are common to different families and populations.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
@Mudfrog
If you are merely saying that an inclination towards sin is an inherent part of human nature, I would agree with you. In which case, I would also agree with Enoch, that something other than'total depravity' would better describe it.
That term is generally associated with classical Calvinism, where it is usually described in a far stronger way than this recognition of inclination.
Well yes, indeed. Total Depravity is classic Calvinism - and yet it's apparent in the 39 Articles of the C of E and it's in Wesley's own teachings and The Salvation Army's doctrines.
I have also said that 'total depravity' may not be a useful phrase anymore when explaining the faith to the public, though in its original meaning it is accurate and scriptural. As with a lot of theological terms maybe it's not for 'public' edification without some very good interpretation and illustration.
I wouldn't discard the phrase - because it's true - but as with a lot of theological language it's best to keep it to the environment of the study, rather than use it in evangelism, public worship, or pastoral situations.
In Calvinism it seems 'strong' because you would couple it with limited atonement and election.
The Calvinist believes therefore that those who are totally depraved, unable to choose to be saved, are left in their depravity unless God 'unconditionally' elects them to salvation, Christ having died only for those God has chosen.
In Wesleyanism we believe that total depravity is remedied by unlimited atonement, i.e. Christ died for the whole world - and 'conditional' election, i.e. that salvation is for anyone who responds to grace and is saved dependent on them accepting that grace through personal faith.
Total depravity is, therefore, not an inescapable state of damnation, but a universal condition of condemnation (see John 3 v 17) that can be remedied perfectly and simply by those who respond to God's 'amazing grace' (see Romans 8 v 1)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Happily we are not necessarily ruled by those inclinations, but we have them.
I would call this our hereditary inclinations to evil, not total depravity. It is hereditary because different inclinations are common to different families and populations.
The first part is our holiness teaching - you can be saved from the power of sin, as well as its past penalties.
The second part is a good definition of total depravity 'hereditary inclinations to evil' - common to us all, and all-pervading. None of us can say there is any part of us that does not need God's grace.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
And, O look! The 39 Articles also have prevenient grace!:
quote:
X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How about Pervasive Depravity?
I was going to suggest "pervasive brokenness." I think you're absolutely correct that "pervasive" conveys the sense of breadth-and-not-depth Mudfrog is talking about much more effectively (to modern ears) than "total," which can mean breadth, depth, or both.
I think that in this technical sense, "brokenness" may be a better term than "sin" or "depravity," especially when it's being used to describe the doctrine to non-Christians. Or even to Christians, for that matter. "Pervasive depravity" seems to mean that everything we do is sinful, rather than that everything we do has been affected by sin. I understand the meaning of the term, of course, but we have strong evidence in this very thread that well-educated and thoughtful people can misunderstand it in good faith!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I would generally agree with some of the definitions above, especially Latchkey Kid's, Mudfrog's and Jengie Jon's. However, I question the idea that sin is fully active from birth. Newborn babies are not sinful, they act only on instinct, but no one who's spent time with them could doubt a toddler's occasional sinfulness. So I think sin (or potential for sin) has to grow with a person's capacity to understand doing something wrong on purpose. Some people (who die soon after birth or are brain-damaged to the extent that they have a baby's mindset in an adult body) I would argue, never sin because they do not have the mental capacity for it.
Thinking that babies could be sinful (and not just developing normally for their age) leads to books like 'To Train Up A Child' by the Pearls and people trying to beat the sin out of 'disobedient' babies ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Some people (who die soon after birth or are brain-damaged to the extent that they have a baby's mindset in an adult body) I would argue, never sin because they do not have the mental capacity for it.
I think this gets at the definition of the term we're using ("depravity" or "sin" or, as my last post preferred, "brokenness").
If we mean that children are born into sin in the sense that children automatically sin (that children are born to not love God with their whole hearts, and not love their neighbors themselves, in thought, word, and deed, by what they have done and by what they have left undone), then I strongly agree that some people never sin. This should be empirically obvious. Otherwise, for some people, there would be a strange situation where fetuses are sinning from the womb or something... (Okay, maybe that's stretching my point too far.)
If, on the other hand, we mean that children are born into a sinful world, I don't think the problem you cite exists.
The misunderstandings (beating the sin out of children, etc.) are really horrifying.
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on
:
All you have to do is read the news headlines every day to see that yes, man is totally depraved.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Sin versus sins, is being highlighted here.
There is a difference between sins - acts committed and Sin - the nature we are born with - the total depravity we are talking about.
Sins are those things we choose to do or do through weakness, ignorance or deliberate fault. The4se are evidently things that a child or a person with no ability to choose, cannot be guilty of.
But Sin is our inescapable nature that even babies have. 'In sin my conceived me' - David isn't talking about his mother's act of sin (there was no act of sin in David's conception) but the nature he inherited from her nature because he shared her humanity (not genetic inheritance please note).
Usually when the Bible speaks of our nature it talks about 'sin', singular.
When it talks about the things we do/fail to do, that is the plural 'sins'.
So, in the case of the baby there have been no sins to be forgiven.
But there is a sinful nature that, soon will produce the acts of sin - naughtiness, wilfulness, etc.
Does God punish the sin in a baby who tragically passes away at birth? NO
That's because the baby is blameless.
There are no sins in that baby's life for which s/he can be blamed.
As for 'beating the sin' out of babies, that is a reheprensible thing to do - it's religious abuse, child abuse; and it comes from those bullies who, either out of stupidity, ignorance of the Gospel or from their own cruel nature USING religion to justify their actions, shouldn't be let anywhere near a child. They would probabilty have behaved like this to the children even without the veneer of religion.
Those of us who believe in total depravity would NEVER sanction any thought of a baby being condemned by God for being a sinner. AFAIAC such a bay goes straight to the arms of Jesus.
There is no hell for a baby; neither is there any cruel doctrine of limbo for us to frighten people with!
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog quote:
Those of us who believe in total depravity would NEVER sanction any thought of a baby being condemned by God for being a sinner.
......er, hold on, your doctrinal statement says: “....as a consequence of their fall, all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are exposed to the wrath of God.” If newborn babies are not sinners then how have they avoided the consequences of their “inescapable nature”? What Original Sin means is that humans are condemned by their “nature” not their “acts”. It also teaches that we are “totally depraved” not on account of our own sin but because of the sin of Adam and Eve. In other words, as individuals we are not responsible for our own depravity. Thus, the fact that a baby has not committed a sin is irrelevant and offers no protection from the wrath of God. I fear your position is commendably sentimental, rather than logical.
A major problem with Original Sin, of course, lies in explaining the sinlessness of Jesus if he was truly human.
I agree with Shamwari’s critical point: “Jesus located the source of sin in the will whereas Paul saw its source in human nature itself.” Christ's formulation solves the problems raised by Original Sin re the incarnation and the question of new-born infants.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Mudfrog: the idea that 'naughtiness' might be a sin is reprehensible.
Do you really believe that Jesus was never 'naughty' as a child? Its part of what it means to be truly human. And, if Luke is right in saying that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature" then that surely implies he grew out of the childish stage of 'naughtiness'.
I am increasingly baffled by your defence of depravity and original sin and all that goes with the Pauline ( but not Jesus') view of what constitutes sin.
I ask at what point does a blameless baby as you assert become a sinner? And therefore liable to judgement.
[ 18. January 2013, 17:11: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And, O look! The 39 Articles also have prevenient grace!:
quote:
X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
It is not a confessional document, the 39 articles. Cranmer and those who wrote them responded to the temper of the times. Not being too Roman and not to continentally protestant.
By the same token, some of what Augustine and Anselm said, and also St Paul, need to be read in context and filtered through our reason.
God created the universe and it evolved within the parameters of what was created. The structure of the physical and biological environment is not "good" in the terms that would satisfy the idea of pre-fall innocence and goodness. Or we would not have the evolution of malaria parasites, ichneuman wasps, animals being eaten while still alive, viruses causing DNA degradation such that cancers ensue etc. If you want depravity of humans, then the basic foundations of creation, as created, not as rendered by human folly, are also depraved. The musings and writings of religious groups, whether methodist, anglican or anything else are challengeable on this basis, on the basis of observed fact of the natural world.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Firstly I have to say that a list of doctrines is just that - a list of doctrines. They are basic principles, summaries, 'introductory sentences' that introduce a theme that must be worked thriough and examined in greater detail.
The general principle of total depravity holds true - it is true to Scripture, experience and the Tradition of the church.
When it comes to the details, these are, and can not be, made into dogma. What do I believe about sin, salvation and judgment?
Broadly speaking I have tio believe that grace is given to all in order to be able to choose to follow Christ after repentance. Jesus spoke of those 'who believe in him'. It is logical therefore to say that those who cannot choose to believe are excluded from this conditional atonement. What sort of God would say to anyone, 'I know you never got a chance to choose but I am condemning you already.
There are two thoughts here:
Accountability (and what age that comes into play)
Blamelessness (whether someone can be blamed for their sin when they had no opportunity to choose repentance)
In Judiasm, accountability is from the age of bar mitzvah - 13? Even Jesus had a bar mitsvah.
Could we say that in that situation anyone 12 and under is counted as blameless?
In catholicism, is 7 not the age of accountability when moral choices can be made?
I read an interesting theory that actually 20 is the age of accountability based on old testament verses that suggested that children were such until 19 -
quote:
"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (Deu 1.39)
According to Numbers the people who were excluded from the Promised Land were aged 20 and over. This means, according to a commentator, that the 19 year olds and below are amongst 'the little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil'.
Whatever the detail is, we have to go with the knowledge that God is a judge who will 'do right'. Jesus is the one who said that the Kingdom belongs to 'such as these.'
I think it must be true that whilst total depravity is our experience, there is mercy which must extend to those who can make no informed, moral choices, and especially a choice to choose to follow Jesus Christ.
And before you ask, I think that goes for people of other faiths who have not heard of Jesus but who have been faithful to the elements of truth they have received in their own teaching.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog quote:
there is mercy which must extend to those who can make no informed, moral choices, and especially a choice to choose to follow Jesus Christ.
Mudfrog, while I have sympathy with your statement, I don’t think it’s compatible with the concept of Original Sin, which teaches that individuals are sinful (and/or totally depraved) not by choice but by nature. Your doctrinal statement states that God’s wrath is incurred on a person by the simple fact of being human, not by the commission of sins, apart from that of Adam and Eve. It’s not a question of individual moral choice. That is why a baby is “justly exposed” to God’s wrath. Clearly, that is a conclusion you find difficulty in accepting, and is one reason why you might want to consider whether a belief in Original Sin is compatible with your understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
there is mercy which must extend to those who can make no informed, moral choices, and especially a choice to choose to follow Jesus Christ.
Mudfrog, while I have sympathy with your statement, I don’t think it’s compatible with the concept of Original Sin, which teaches that individuals are sinful (and/or totally depraved) not by choice but by nature. Your doctrinal statement states that God’s wrath is incurred on a person by the simple fact of being human, not by the commission of sins, apart from that of Adam and Eve. It’s not a question of individual moral choice. That is why a baby is “justly exposed” to God’s wrath. Clearly, that is a conclusion you find difficulty in accepting, and is one reason why you might want to consider whether a belief in Original Sin is compatible with your understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
But you are omitting grace from this equation. And above all, mercy. Grace does not remove the penalty but it does withold the condemnation.
If you are going to have 'justly exposed to the wrath of God' you need to focus less on the 'wrath' and a little more on the 'justly'. There is justice involved here and justice demands that judgment is meted out with equity. There could never be any justice if those who do not know they are sinners are condemned without having the opportunity for moral choice - this is precisely why prevenient grace is given - that people might choose to be saved.
'Justly exposed to the wrath of God' does not mean that we are all automatically and irrevocably damned whatever the circumstances! Grace, mercy and justice mean that the final judgment is God's and that many who are, like all of us, justly exposed to the wrath of God by reason of total depravity will find that justice and mercy actually commute the sentence because of blamelessness.
Or would you rather enforce the penalty on those who, not being aware there was a choice, were never able to make that choice?
That sounds worse than the doctrine I hold that you disagree with.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog, thanks for your reply, though I’m not convinced you have taken on board the distinction made by Shamwari between sin located in the will, and sin as having its source in human nature. I would also be interested to know how you square Original Sin with the notion of Christ being wholly human.
Your recent replies raise the question as to whom the doctrine of Original Sin practically applies, particularly in relation to the threat of the wrath of God. If one excludes children under the age of responsibility together with those who have never heard the gospel preached with understanding, we seem to be honing in on a relatively small proportion of the world’s population: those of moral responsibility who have heard and understood the gospel message. It seems to me one’s chances of avoiding “endless punishment” are increased for those who have not heard the gospel and understood it. A dilemma for evangelists, one might think!
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Reconcile the God of Wrath with the God of Love if you can. Interpretations that suggest God enjoyed the genocide, say in Joshua, attributed to God's desire and orders, might resemble this. We must judge and hate such a god, and help to kill him if we can.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Reconcile the God of Wrath with the God of Love if you can. Interpretations that suggest God enjoyed the genocide, say in Joshua, attributed to God's desire and orders, might resemble this. We must judge and hate such a god, and help to kill him if we can.
I kind of agree with you if I understand you correctly.
Most of my prayers are to sort my erroneous ideas (god) from G-d. As Mudfrog indicates this would appear to be where wrath, mercy, justice and grace intersect.
This is a most enlightening thread so thanks to all the insightful posters above.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Kaplan Corday quote:
I seem to remember Chesterton writing somewhere that Original Sin is the only dogma susceptible of empirical demonstration.
Do you really hold that to be the case? In what way is it empirically demonstrated that there were two people, Adam and Eve, who lived in a state of bliss in Eden, disobeyed God, and as a result ensured that all future generations would be totally depraved? I would have thought that empirically it has been demonstrated not to be so. What is demonstrated daily is that human beings have a capacity to perform acts of charity and commit terrible crimes. That human beings sin tells us nothing about Original Sin one way or the other.
The situation we have is that human beings are the product of biological evolution, and their natures for good and ill are a product of that. It could be argued, therefore, that a human’s capacity to do bad things is innate, which might superficially be seen to underscore Original Sin. Critically, however, humans have never lived in a state of bliss and there was no fall. If God feels wrathful about that then he is condemning them for being human. To my mind a gospel that tells people they are “totally depraved”, “exposed to God’s wrath”, and threatened with “endless punishment” has little attraction. More importantly, it is both unconvincing, false, and a cover for intellectual laziness.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Babies are born innocent and sinless, but necessarily selfish. We are slowly taught to live in society and to become less selfish.
As shamwari and Kwesi say - sin is located in the will. When we decide to harm others or not to help others when it's possible then we sin.
We are not sinful (depraved) by nature.
I am constantly amazed by the kindness of others, not their depravity!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But I am intrigued by the fact that our dark side is actually necessary. I mean, that being aggressive and selfish is essential to survival,and development, but of course, in humans, they can get out of kilter, or become exaggerated, and so on.
I find this interesting professionally, as, as a psychotherapist, I would get clients who were insufficiently aggressive and selfish, and then there would often be a long haul, to help them become so.
The same seems to apply to children - they have to be socialized, so that their aggression and selfishness is moderated, but not crushed.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The same seems to apply to children - they have to be socialized, so that their aggression and selfishness is moderated, but not crushed.
Agreed - if we can't care for ourselves then we can't care for anyone else. We need enough self esteem to look after ourselves but not so much that we are unrealistic and arrogant about our abilities. Parents and teachers have huge responsibilities to help their children come to this point.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Slightly confused here.
So, attractive as it might seem (thiough rather sentimental perhaps), we are all born sinless and then we learn to sin through our environment?
OK - so do our acts of sin infect our natures and corrupt them, making them sinful?
When do we need a Saviour?
And is it theoretically possible for a child to be brought up to act sinlessly?
How does this all square with Scripture, experience and church tradition?
Are you really saying that we have no sin until our sins pollute us?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog quote:
And is it theoretically possible for a child to be brought up to act sinlessly?
In this regard, how are we to consider the case of Jesus?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
And is it theoretically possible for a child to be brought up to act sinlessly?
In this regard, how are we to consider the case of Jesus?
erm... incarnate God, virgin-born, sinless?
Truly and properly man, in the sense that he was man as man is intended to be? Born without original sin but, like Adam, able to choose to sin (but didn't)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And is it theoretically possible for a child to be brought up to act sinlessly?
No - we are all going to get it wrong sometimes. It's a very fine line between sensibly caring for ourselves and being selfish.
There are also many actions which are wrong and harmful and we don't know it. A silly example - wet wipes toilet paper. What a great thing they seemed, 'flushable' too. Turns out they are an environmental disaster. I try hard to care fo the environment, but used these for two years before I found out how harmful they were. Lots of harm is done this way - unknowingly
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I would say that trying to bring a child up sinlessly would be a total disaster, and he/she would probably end up as a crack addict.
I mean, that children have to be permitted a degree of aggression, naughtiness, and so on, whilst also being socialized in how to treat people reasonably well.
If you try to totally suppress their naughtiness, expect a backlash in their teens!
In fact, when I was training as a therapist, I remember the adage that it's the kids who are not naughty who are problematic and worrying.
[ 19. January 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog, I’m surprised that you suggest that the virgin birth meant Jesus was born sinless. After all half his genes came through Mary. I don’t think you would want to get involved in the immaculate conception of Mary, would you? One of my objections to Original Sin is that it must imply that in being truly human Jesus would have been contaminated by Adam’s sin.
On your substantial questions as to whether we need a saviour and whether we are corrupted by sin, I’m inclined to anwer yes to both. I’m also of the view that many liberals dangerously under-estimate the radical power of evil.
I don’t find it difficult to believe that we are born sinless, which is why Jesus could be truly human, though unlike him we are unable to keep it up. It seems to me that in your comments regarding babies and moral responsibility you are close to that position, certainly for all practical purposes.
Regarding the sanction of scripture, I don’t find anything in the gospels that supports Original Sin; and am of the opinion that “no longer will it be said the parents have eaten sour grapes and their children’s teeth are set on edge.”
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
1. Jesus was born sinless simply because none of us were - none of us could be the Saviour so God had to become human for us.
2. You find nothing in the gospels about original sin? well it's a good job we have the rest of the Bible then; you cannot base your entire doctrine and theology on 4 books and miss out the other 62.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Jesus said:
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18)
And Paul in Romans wrote:
"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God." (Romans 4:2)
Both these verses indicate that all righteousness comes from God and that therefore no man - whether the sinless incarnate Son of God or a hypothetically morally perfect Patriarch - could ever be called good.
This suggests to me that even man before the fall was not really 'righteous' in himself (and I am referring to the fall in a theological sense, as I know that this thread is not the appropriate place to argue about origins.)
This sets the doctrines of 'total depravity' and 'original sin' in a completely different light. Whether 'man' is totally depraved or not is actually irrelevant. Even if 'he' had not committed any sin at all, he would still be, in a sense, 'totally depraved', because any righteousness he did have would not be his own anyway.
This is why I find the tortuous reasonings throughout Christian history rather bizarre. There is talk of what 'man' deserves, as if there is an expectation that 'man' ought to live righteously and thereby be rewarded by God for so doing. And then God is angry that 'man' has failed to live up to this expectation.
But it is a completely false expectation anyway!
Just as a perfect man can never deserve heaven (because his perfection was a gift from God), then a less than perfect man does not necessarily deserve hell. The latter cannot be true, because it implies the former, which is manifestly not true.
It is also interesting to read that...
"God has committed them all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." (Romans 11:32).
OK, there is a context to this verse, but nevertheless a principle is revealed here: God's purpose in allowing "original sin" (if that is the idea we must adopt) is only to shift the idea of righteousness away from law (and its accompanying self-righteousness) to a new basis, which is mercy.
I am actually very sceptical about the concept of "original sin" and I really don't accept that we can build such a doctrine on the flimsy foundation of Psalm 51:5 ("In sin my mother conceived me"). The Psalms are full of subjectivism, and it was a common Hebrew device to lament problems of life with extreme emotionally laden references to birth, hence:
Psalm 58:3 - "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
New born babies morally go astray and speak lies on the very day they are born? C'mon, there is no way that that can possibly be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic literary device.
Or from another part of the OT:
Job 3:3ff - "May the day perish on which I was born, and the night in which it was said, ‘A male child is conceived.’ May that day be darkness..." etc...
There are many other examples of this in the OT.
I am very reluctant to dismiss Bible passages as mere 'hyperbole', but in these instances the context really does demand such an interpretation.
The idea that we have a "sin nature" that is somehow abstracted from the actions of sin, seems to me to be a concession to the demands of systematic theology rather than a sober appraisal of reality. Yes, we can see that children grow up with a certain selfishness, but isn't that an inevitable part of human development? Surely a child has to start with where he or she is at? We start with 'self' and grow outwards. How else are we supposed to develop?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mudfrog quote:
1. Jesus was born sinless simply because none of us were - none of us could be the Saviour so God had to become human for us.
But the whole point is that if you define human nature as the product of Original Sin then if Jesus was human: "of our flesh and of our bone," he must ipso facto have been tainted by it. If Jesus was sinless, as most Christians believe, then the doctrine of Original Sin cannot be sustained. You can't have both.
Mudfrog quote:
2. You find nothing in the gospels about original sin? well it's a good job we have the rest of the Bible then; you cannot base your entire doctrine and theology on 4 books and miss out the other 62.
Well, Mudfrog, I find it remarkable that you don't find its omission from the life and teaching of Jesus as significant.
As for the remaining books: there are (according to Bible Gateway) 15 references to Adam in Genesis 1-5; 1 genealogical reference in 1Chronicles; 1 in Luke's genealogy; 3 in Romans; 3 in Corinthians; 2 in Timothy; and 1 in Jude.
If Adam's sin was so central to Jewish theology and Christ's mission, would one not have expected it to have had a greater airing between the early chapters of Genesis and Paul's letters?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
OK, we see what you've done now: you've moved the discussion away from 'total depravity and whether humanity is, in fact, totally depraved' and now you're saying that what you actually believe is that, not only are we not totally depraved, we're not even sinful to any degree at all!
And what's more, you're trying to suggest that we are born in exactly the same sinless state as Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who, evidently because he somehow didn't give in to his temptations, found he was good enough to the be the sinless saviour of the world.
Which rather suggests that, had anyone else managed to do the same, he or she too would have qualified for the role of suffering servant, Lamb of God and crucified Saviour.
All makes you wonder why bother with the Incarnation in the first place, if we're all born with the same sinless nature Jesus had.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm too tired for all this. Another endless false dichotomy. The language of the bible from beginning to end is about fallen, lost, sinful, broken, alienated, ignorant, psychotic, selfish, weak, depraved humanity being met by God as a full human who was NONE of those things because Prince trumps Toad.
If we want to deceive ourselves that we are nice all the way through, great. Lucky us. Didn't anybody notice? Human beings lost from intimacy in God go, went straight to Hell.
To where He came and got us. See, all joined up.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
Which rather suggests that, had anyone else managed to do the same, he or she too would have qualified for the role of suffering servant, Lamb of God and crucified Saviour.
No, it does not!
(I know you were responding to Kwesi, but...) as I pointed out in my earlier post, Jesus as man did not consider himself 'good'. And Paul affirmed that if Abraham was justified by works, he would indeed be able to boast, but not before God.
In other words, no man could ever be righteous in himself (i.e. somehow independently of God), even one who lived a perfect life according to the law, because all righteousness comes from God.
The unequivocal sense of the Scripture is that only God is righteous. Therefore no man could ever conceivably earn any moral status before God, even in the absence of the fall.
If you don't accept this, then how do you read Mark 10:18?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
EE, unfortunately I have seen people take the verse about people speaking evil right out of the womb to be literal As in, people who consider a baby crying in hunger to be 'sinning'.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm too tired for all this. Another endless false dichotomy. The language of the bible from beginning to end is about fallen, lost, sinful, broken, alienated, ignorant, psychotic, selfish, weak, depraved humanity being met by God as a full human who was NONE of those things because Prince trumps Toad.
If we want to deceive ourselves that we are nice all the way through, great. Lucky us. Didn't anybody notice? Human beings lost from intimacy in God go, went straight to Hell.
To where He came and got us. See, all joined up.
*like*
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would call this our hereditary inclinations to evil, not total depravity.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
God created the universe and it evolved within the parameters of what was created.
Our hereditary inclination to evil can be quite easily explained from our evolution. A lion is predatory, but no one would call it sin. At some point in human evolution, we developed the imagination to stand outside ourselves, and imagine the suffering of others. From that moment, every selfish act which harms another becomes a moral choice. Freddy's list of our inclinations are what any creature would do for its own survival. Which is nature, and hence our evil inclination. But we know better, because we can contemplate the consequences of those actions. This the Fall, our failure to rise to what we ought to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Total Depravity is classic Calvinism - and yet it's apparent in the 39 Articles of the C of E
The 39 Articles are pure Calvinism!
quote:
From Article 9:
and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation .
I've never been able to get my head round why we're deserving of God's wrath and damnation when He put us here. With our imperfections, would He expect perfection from us?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvengelical:
"God has committed them all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." (Romans 11:32).
This is where I place my hope for the future.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Total Depravity was postulated by John Calvin in his five point TULIP theology: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
However, there were other Medieval Theologians who did not accept Calvin's Total Depravity point.
Luther, in his Bondage of the Will, said that when it comes to salvation, humans are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God on their own.
Luther concluded that unredeemed human beings are dominated by Satan; Satan, as the prince of the mortal world, never lets go of what he considers his own unless he is overpowered by a stronger power, i.e. God. When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God. No-one can achieve salvation or redemption through their own choices—people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is simply the product of God dominating a person and forcibly turning them to good ends. Were it not so, Luther contended, God would not be omnipotent and would lack total sovereignty over creation, and Luther held that arguing otherwise was insulting to the glory of God.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Total Depravity was postulated by John Calvin in his five point TULIP theology: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
However, there were other Medieval Theologians who did not accept Calvin's Total Depravity point.
Luther, in his Bondage of the Will, said that when it comes to salvation, humans are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God on their own.
Luther concluded that unredeemed human beings are dominated by Satan; Satan, as the prince of the mortal world, never lets go of what he considers his own unless he is overpowered by a stronger power, i.e. God. When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God. No-one can achieve salvation or redemption through their own choices—people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is simply the product of God dominating a person and forcibly turning them to good ends. Were it not so, Luther contended, God would not be omnipotent and would lack total sovereignty over creation, and Luther held that arguing otherwise was insulting to the glory of God.
Hmmm. It makes me wonder about the personal psychology of both Luther and Calvin. Probably they were preoccupied with some aspects of their own personalities and functioning. The easy proposal would be that they were troubled by their sexuality. Perhaps there are more sophisticated analyses of their dour proposals about how we're all losers.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Kaplan Corday quote:
I seem to remember Chesterton writing somewhere that Original Sin is the only dogma susceptible of empirical demonstration.
Do you really hold that to be the case? In what way is it empirically demonstrated that there were two people, Adam and Eve, who lived in a state of bliss in Eden, disobeyed God, and as a result ensured that all future generations would be totally depraved?
It is not necessary to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally in order to believe in the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity.
quote:
The situation we have is that human beings are the product of biological evolution, and their natures for good and ill are a product of that.
That is a quite breathtaking statement, given that one of the fiercest intellectual debates of our era (which has nothing to do with Christians or theology) pits the advocates of deterministic evolutionary biology against the proponents of the dominance of learned, environmental, cultural and social factors in human behaviour.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
At some point in human evolution, we developed the imagination to stand outside ourselves, and imagine the suffering of others. From that moment, every selfish act which harms another becomes a moral choice. Freddy's list of our inclinations are what any creature would do for its own survival. Which is nature, and hence our evil inclination. But we know better, because we can contemplate the consequences of those actions. This the Fall, our failure to rise to what we ought to be.
Exactly right.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Hmmm. It makes me wonder about the personal psychology of both Luther and Calvin. Probably they were preoccupied with some aspects of their own personalities and functioning. The easy proposal would be that they were troubled by their sexuality. Perhaps there are more sophisticated analyses of their dour proposals about how we're all losers.
Everything goes back to Freud?
Something that certainly seems to have driven Luther was a feeling that God was angry, and that no amount of monastic exercises could ever make him good enough, the effect of a flavour that was very strongly played in late medieval Western Christianity. Even when not actually taught, it has remained an underlying thread implicit in the North-European psyche probably until within living memory. Hence the preoccupations of preachers of even the recent past, and the fact that people could still both hear that message and feel they needed it.
One does not know, but it's possibly a fruit of the interaction of traditional modes of parenting on particular temperaments.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The sinlessness of our Lord is a mystery, like much of our faith. I caution emphasizing too much on Our Lord's sinless nature because Scripture teaches that He was an Obedient servant, obedient unto the Cross. Obedience only makes sense if Our Lord had a fully human will (which is what the Sixth ecumenical council I believe, concluded). Ergo, that means there was a possibility that Our Lord could sin, but He chose not to. Now, you could say that it was because of his divine nature, but I get nervous because suddenly, Our Lord becomes robotic "He of course didn't sin, because He could not sin." If he is a robot, then he wasn't human, in which case, the whole Incarnation becomes pointless ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
In his divinity, Our Lord could not have sinned. In his humanity, Our Lord had a fully human will, and so there is a hypothetical possibility that he could have sinned.
What happened is that His humanity freely and fully obeyed the divine will.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Gramps49
Calvin is no five point Calvinist, the TULIP formulation comes out of the Synod of Dort a hundred years or so after Calvin's death. It is actually a debate between Calvinists, sorry Arminians but Arminius was not Arminian either. The debate in todays terms was whether you had to be a liberal or a conservative take on Reformed theology to be Dutch. It is also pretty clear Calvin would have rejected one point and is dubious on another. So:
- John Calvin knew nothing of five point Calvinism
- If he had, he probably would have rejected them
On this element Calvin is not the clearest speaker, he also referred to creation as the "theatre of God's action" and seems to have a sense of wonder at God's activity there in. In other words Calvin believed God acted through creation indeed seems to have had an almost spiritual understanding of creation.
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The sinlessness of our Lord is a mystery, like much of our faith. I caution emphasizing too much on Our Lord's sinless nature because Scripture teaches that He was an Obedient servant, obedient unto the Cross. Obedience only makes sense if Our Lord had a fully human will (which is what the Sixth ecumenical council I believe, concluded). Ergo, that means there was a possibility that Our Lord could sin, but He chose not to. Now, you could say that it was because of his divine nature, but I get nervous because suddenly, Our Lord becomes robotic "He of course didn't sin, because He could not sin." If he is a robot, then he wasn't human, in which case, the whole Incarnation becomes pointless
In his divinity, Our Lord could not have sinned. In his humanity, Our Lord had a fully human will, and so there is a hypothetical possibility that he could have sinned.
What happened is that His humanity freely and fully obeyed the divine will.
I don't believe he could not sin. I believe that he, being sinless but 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' was like Adam - with the free will to choose.
The atonement theory here is recapitulation, is it not? 'A second Adam to the fight and to the rescue came'?
In this case, Jesus did what we cannot do because we are 'after' Adam - he chose.
And therein lies the difference: we could not choose to do right; we could not choose to not sin.
And that's Paul's whole cry of anguish: who will rescue me from this body of death?
Jesus, in perfect (Adamic?) humanity, didn't do what Adam did; he didn't choose self-will over God's will; instead he was totally obedient to the Father and, by dying the death penalty that was justly deserved by humanity he suffered Adam's immediate fate and our own essential state: estrangement from God in the cry of 'My God, my God why have you forsaken me.' and the 'expulsion' from fellowship with God - enmity.
Instead of Adam hiding from the Lord God in the garden, Jesus felt the anguish that God himself felt, as the father 'hid' himself from the Son.
So, Jesus wasn't sinless in the sense of he wwas without original sin; that was irrelevant because he was born as Adam was when he was formed - without sin but with potential for sin.
Total depravity was not in existence until Adam performed his sinful action, and didn't come to fruition until he had his first son.
Had Jesus given in to the temptings of the devil he would have become totally depraved.
[ 20. January 2013, 12:08: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The hypostatic union is THE greatest mystery. There is no possibility that the only person who was ever fully human and fully divine could sin. This perichoresis of natures. And a nature without an object, in this case a person, is meaningless. A person expresses a nature. There's nothing robotic about it. Everything deterministic. A human-divine person with a human-divine nature and a divine communion, communing from conception cannot but do the right thing.
All human persons cannot but go astray.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
So far nobody that I can see has attempted to discuss the issue with reference to the science which most people hold to be true. i.e. we are the products of a long span of evolutionary development.
What does that indicate about human nature?
How far back does 'depravity' reach?
de Chardin had much to say about this and to contribute to this question.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Because it's irrelevant.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Irrelevant in whose opinion other than yours? I might have expected more from Martin than a knee-jerk reaction
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Hmmm. It makes me wonder about the personal psychology of both Luther and Calvin. Probably they were preoccupied with some aspects of their own personalities and functioning. The easy proposal would be that they were troubled by their sexuality. Perhaps there are more sophisticated analyses of their dour proposals about how we're all losers.
Everything goes back to Freud?
Something that certainly seems to have driven Luther was a feeling that God was angry, and that no amount of monastic exercises could ever make him good enough, the effect of a flavour that was very strongly played in late medieval Western Christianity. Even when not actually taught, it has remained an underlying thread implicit in the North-European psyche probably until within living memory. Hence the preoccupations of preachers of even the recent past, and the fact that people could still both hear that message and feel they needed it.
One does not know, but it's possibly a fruit of the interaction of traditional modes of parenting on particular temperaments.
No it goes back further than Freud, and you do note that I said the easy interpretation is about sex, which also is a reflection of the preoccupation of our times, not necessarily their's. It goes back to Paul I think, in terms of the Christian era. A human whose letters reveal things about the man in addition to his illumination of faith.
But we might have to go back further still, to Deuteronomy and Leviticus and review the Hebrew holiness code to understand the ancients' beliefs about our depravity.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Come shamwari, that's all I'm known for, tedious one liners.
I'm not a materialist and until extrasolar planetary oxygen is detected or we can do what puddles did 4Ga ago have no need to be until then. Then it will be necessary to believe that life is emergent of matter.
Even that does not make mind emergent of life. But let's say it does, that God just Zens until it does. God? Well we have to be an unth supernaturalistic and believe that the cosmos is dependent on His will? Or is that just fundamentalist? Literal. Wooden.
So we don't need Him even if He exists. AH! We die.
HELP!
Oh He will, so that's all right then. Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao sorted in the twinkling of an eye.
OKayyyy - that's not sarcastic - so what do we do now ?
What do we do for the decades each of us has remaining and the thousands of years as a species ?
What do we do about Israel-Palestine, child sacrificing America, inequity, unrighteousness, injustice, evil ?
Talk it all away with greater and greater circles of truth and reconciliation ?
May be that'll do it.
But history and myth show us we must never stop. Because we are weak, ignorant, benighted, fail, err. Evil finds a way. No matter how evolved we become.
I could not care LESS whether God intervened in creation or not. I grew up alienated from Him. I was hurt by others who had before me. I hurt myself. And others. I hurt. Is that His fault? His failure? Could He have done it better? Of course not. That's how it is. Creation is dirty for all concerned. Bloody. Painful.
I'm not up to it. He is.
So may be the thing in me that says "I wouldn't do that again" is the de-adapted child, the essentialy nice natured thing that was always there?
The gibberingly terrified existentially lonely emotionally abandoned little boy that I've always loved. The little boy that in the pursuit of love did unlovable things.
Hmmmm. It's taken the unconditional love of God to free that adapted - i.e. depraved - child at all. From his depraved life at the hands of depraved parents in a depraved world.
There is NONE good but One.
And no, God doesn't just Zen. Only a hippie prat would do that. He's RESPONSIBLE.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
And therein lies the difference: we could not choose to do right; we could not choose to not sin.
Therefore if we could not choose to do what is right, we deserved no punishment at all. After all, we don't say that a computer deserves to be smashed up because it performs operations in accordance with its programming, do we? Anyone who advocated that would rightly be judged to be morally insane.
Or suppose a brilliant doctor deliberately took his newly pregnant wife to live in the shadow of Chernobyl shortly after the disaster, and she gave birth to a seriously ill and deformed child. Then they moved away from there, and the doctor performed some amazing surgery on the child (after allowing the poor soul to suffer pain and humiliation for years) and demanded praise for so doing. Furthermore, he claimed to have 'saved' his child from the agony that he (the child) justly deserved, for committing the sin of having been born in the shadow of the nuclear reactor.
It doesn't add up, does it?
But that is what a lot of popular 'evangelical' theology sounds like, I'm afraid. And then the Church wonders why so many people are not interested.
quote:
Had Jesus given in to the temptings of the devil he would have become totally depraved.
What, immediately or eventually?
Surely it cannot make any sense that Jesus would have immediately become 'totally depraved' because one sin would only have affected one part of his nature. If he did not for example, steal, take bribes, lie or commit acts of violence, but his first sin was indulging in "adultery of the heart" by looking with lust at an attractive woman, then sin would only have affected his sexual side. How is that an example of 'total depravity'? What meaning does the word 'total' have, in this instance?
If this can be called "total depravity", then the phrase is a meaningless theological construct with no relationship to reality.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I am KLB and rarely say this, but I endorse EE's message.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Does this mean I'm depraved? I don't feel depraved.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Quite, it is a word I associate with behaviour such as raping babies or torturing for sport.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0