Total depravity

[everbecoming2007]

This is a question specifically for my liberal friends coming from reformed and Calvinist traditions.

Do you still believe in total depravity? (I apologize if this is not the correct terminology. I am not too familiar with reformed traditions.)

If you do, do you interpret it differently than the traditional reformed view on this matter?

Do those in liberal reformed traditions generally accept total depravity?

And do you believe all your works are deserving of God's wrath? Even good ones?

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a question specifically for my liberal friends coming from reformed and Calvinist traditions.

Do you still believe in total depravity? (I apologize if this is not the correct terminology. I am not too familiar with reformed traditions.)

If you do, do you interpret it differently than the traditional reformed view on this matter?

Do those in liberal reformed traditions generally accept total depravity?

And do you believe all your works are deserving of God's wrath? Even good ones?

If you are not walking in a garden paradise, chatting with God on the path beside you, then, you have been removed from paradise and are not with God where you belong.

Genesis 3:24
So He drove out the man and stationed cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden, with a whirling sword of flame to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[everbecoming2007]

If you are not walking in a garden paradise, chatting with God on the path beside you, then, you have been removed from paradise and are not with God where you belong.

I'm not following how that relates to what I said.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not following how that relates to what I said.

You are walking in a state of sin. Just as fish are wet, man is in sin.

 

[SkyWriting]

do you believe all your works are deserving of God's wrath? Even good ones?

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

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

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

 

[everbecoming2007]

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

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

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

Sorry,but you're not engaging with my questions and it isn't helpful.

 

[SkyWriting]

And do you believe all your works are deserving of God's wrath? Even good ones?

We are justified by faith:

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

And our response being saved is to do good works.
Titus 3:14
And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful.

Good works can reveal that we are believers:
James 2:14-20
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Matthew 5:16
In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Titus 3:8
The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry,but you're not engaging with my questions and it isn't helpful.

I'm a bad boy.

 

[hedrick]

It's hard to know how to answer for all liberal Christianity, because I'm not sure what you mean by the term. The main denominations that CF considers liberal are the mainline churches. But they are really a mix of different perspectives, and may not be as liberal as many think.

Even with mainline it's hard to give official answers for all. Here's a response from the PCUSA Confession of 1967. The PCUSA is unusual in that we have continued to issue official confessions during the modern era. That makes it easier to document our theology than it is with other mainline churches. I think the PCUSA is fairly typical of mainline Christianity.

"Wise and virtuous men and women through the ages have sought the highest good in devotion to freedom, justice, peace, truth, and beauty. Yet all human virtue, when seen in the light of God’s love in Jesus Christ, is found to be infected by self-interest and hostility. All people, good and bad alike, are in the wrong before God and helpless without God’s forgiveness. Thus everyone falls under God’s judgment. No one is more subject to that judgment than those who assume that they are guiltless before God or morally superior to others."

This is from the latest edition of C67, which has been lightly edited to use inclusive language.

 

[hedrick]

Please note that even traditionally "total depravity" may not mean what you think. It doesn't mean that we can do nothing right. Rather it means that we are sufficiently infected with sin that our motives are always mixed, and so even our best actions are to some extent infected by sin. But that doesn't mean that we don't love people and do things to help them, nor does it mean that we are completely evil.

Historically it was also used to indicate that sin is something that applies to the total person. It's not just sexual desire or some other specific thing that is infected, but us as a whole. But it wasn't intended to say that there's no good in us. So total can be misleading. Calvin noted that when God looks at us, he still sees his image, even though it's corrupted. Recognizing himself in us, he wants to redeem us.

 

[everbecoming2007]

It's hard to know how to answer for all liberal Christianity, because I'm not sure what you mean by the term. The main denominations that CF considers liberal are the mainline churches. But they are really a mix of different perspectives, and may not be as liberal as many think.

Even with mainline it's hard to give official answers for all. Here's a response from the PCUSA Confession of 1967. The PCUSA is unusual in that we have continued to issue official confessions during the modern era. That makes it easier to document our theology than it is with other mainline churches. I think the PCUSA is fairly typical of mainline Christianity.

"Wise and virtuous men and women through the ages have sought the highest good in devotion to freedom, justice, peace, truth, and beauty. Yet all human virtue, when seen in the light of God’s love in Jesus Christ, is found to be infected by self-interest and hostility. All people, good and bad alike, are in the wrong before God and helpless without God’s forgiveness. Thus everyone falls under God’s judgment. No one is more subject to that judgment than those who assume that they are guiltless before God or morally superior to others."

This is from the latest edition of C67, which has been lightly edited to use inclusive language.

So far as I can tell this falls short of a full theology of total depravity or total inability or whatever you want to call it.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Please note that even traditionally "total depravity" may not mean what you think. It doesn't mean that we can do nothing right. Rather it means that we are sufficiently infected with sin that our motives are always mixed, and so even our best actions are to some extent infected by sin. But that doesn't mean that we don't love people and do things to help them, nor does it mean that we are completely evil.

Historically it was also used to indicate that sin is something that applies to the total person. It's not just sexual desire or some other specific thing that is infected, but us as a whole. But it wasn't intended to say that there's no good in us. So total can be misleading. Calvin noted that when God looks at us, he still sees his image, even though it's corrupted. Recognizing himself in us, he wants to redeem us.

Does this doctrine entail that all of our actions, even good ones, deserve punishment?

 

[hedrick]

Does this doctrine entail that all of our actions, even good ones, deserve punishment?

I’m not sure I have an official modern answer to this question. C67 doesn’t say.

I’m going to give you a personal answer, which probably doesn’t reflect a mainline consensus.

In a sense it’s a hypothetical question, because it is in effect, “if it weren’t for God’s grace, would all acts deserve punishment.” But I don’t know how to answer that, because you’re asking for me to apply a standard that differs from God’s actual standard.

What complicates it is that I think the love of God affects the nature of our acts. Without God’s grace, acts might comply with the 10 commandments, but I think in the end they would turn out to be toxic goodness. That kind of goodness does deserve condemnation.

So I don’t think I can answer a question about acts ignoring whether they are done in Christ or not.

So you don’t think I’m using a trick to avoid your question: I do disagree with traditional Reformed theology’s claim that no one is righteous. In fact the Bible calls lots of people righteous. Check a concordance. There are two exceptions. One is a prophet who is particularly upset about the current state of Israel, and is using hyperbole. The other is Paul, who quotes that statement in a context this is hypothetical. That is, he’s saying that if we tried to separate righteousness from God’s grace we’d all be unrighteous. Yup. Righteousness is only within faith.

The reason the Bible can call people righteous is that Scripture doesn’t use righteous to indicate some kind of moral perfection that would stand independent of God’s grace. Rather, someone is righteous when they do (imperfectly) what God tells them to, within the context of faith.

Traditional Reformed writers give the impression that there is in principle a righteousness independent of God’s grace; we just can’t reach it because of original sin. Hence the claim that Adam and Eve were righteous before the Fall, since before the Fall they could reach it. But I think it’s a mistake to say that such righteousness exists. I think any attempt at righteousness independent of God’s grace would result in something toxic.

Indeed I don't think God intended us to operate independent of him, and thus that this dependence upon his grace is how we were designed to work. That's good, because of course I don't think Adam and Eve historically existed, nor that there was an actual historical event corresponding to the Fall. Rather, we evolved as creatures that learn by trial and error, thus pretty much guaranteeing that we would make mistakes, some of which would be moral errors.

 

[hedrick]

This question of righteousness affects justification. Traditional Reformed exegesis understands righteousness from faith in the following way: Righteousness means moral perfection. We can't possibly be morally perfect, but Christ can. He doesn't need grace to be righteous. So Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

But Paul never says that. He says that our faith is accepted (imputed) as righteousness, not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. I think that's because righteousness means living as God wants in the context of faith. God accepts our faith as righteousness because it is in fact the basis of righteousness. Paul is opposed to basing righteousness on works of the law. Ironically, works is precisely the standard proposed by traditional Reformed exegesis, when it sees righteousness as moral perfection independent of grace. It's just that it's Christ's works, not ours.

 

[Starcomet]

As a progressive Christian, I believe the idea of total depravity is false and first made up by Augustine with his idea of original sin and John Calvin and his anti-biblical rantings. Pelagius was correct, that while humanity is capable of sin, we are not sinful by nature and can do good and be righteous naturally. God's grace assist us in walking the right path and staying on this path, but we are not incapable of walking the right without it.

 

[MatthewG27]

I believe that God still cares about people, even when they are unbelieving and are blind to see the blessings that God does bring into the lives of other people while they are unbelieving. I do not believe anyone is depraved, they just have a lack of faith, and maybe even a lack of understanding.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This is a question specifically for my liberal friends coming from reformed and Calvinist traditions.

Do you still believe in total depravity? (I apologize if this is not the correct terminology. I am not too familiar with reformed traditions.)

If you do, do you interpret it differently than the traditional reformed view on this matter?

Do those in liberal reformed traditions generally accept total depravity?

And do you believe all your works are deserving of God's wrath? Even good ones?

Basically, in laymen's terms, the easiest way I can explain what the doctrine of "Total Depravity" is that sin affects all areas of our being including who we are and what we do. It has affected our minds, will, emotions, and bodies. There is absolutely nothing about our being that has been unblemished by sin.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Does this doctrine entail that all of our actions, even good ones, deserve punishment?

No.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh has sorrow even in the death of a lost soul. But He never contradicts His Own Word, Plan and Purpose in Christ Jesus as Revealed to little children , as Revealed in Scripture.

Thus, as His Word Says, He hates those whose hearts are full of perversion (depraved ones).

And lack of faith ? Some are already condemned, on earth, today, for their unbelief. (as written in God's Word).

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Understanding? Not so big a requirement, per se.

BUT, understanding CONTRARY to His Word, that's deception, or being deceived by the devil, demons, sin, or one's own self will.

I believe that God still cares about people, even when they are unbelieving and are blind to see the blessings that God does bring into the lives of other people while they are unbelieving. I do not believe anyone is depraved, they just have a lack of faith, and maybe even a lack of understanding.

 

[hedrick]

Pelagius was correct, that while humanity is capable of sin, we are not sinful by nature and can do good and be righteous naturally.

I don't believe in total depravity either. I took a look at what little is left from Pelagius' work, to see if maybe he was misjudged. I think you'll find that he didn't make sufficient room for grace.