|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Humanity Totally Depraved?
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
I have had a hard day. Can I have a night off from being totally depraved and just watch TV, please?
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
[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?
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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,
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
@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.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilyswinburne
Shipmate
# 12934
|
Posted
All you have to do is read the news headlines every day to see that yes, man is totally depraved.
Posts: 126 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
