What is the meaning of Total Depravity?

[Hawkins]

It's rather a human misunderstanding of what out situation truly is.

The big picture is, both Eden and Earth are sandboxes emulationg the Final Heaven where high intelligence angels live with low intelligence humans. Eden displays where the issue is, the crafty snake (high intelligence angel) defeated humans. The same happened on Earth, all mankind is kept captive (Isaiah 14:17) without exception (that's why each and every single human requires Jesus). Humans should have been destroyed completely through the Flood. Earth however illustrates the ultimate solution. Humans stand no chance to defeat the angels in terms of intelligence and strength, they are hopeless without Jesus.

Jesus' self-sacrifice changed the rule legally and legitimately. Earth is so designed that the angels (fallen ones) will be utterly defeated, not through intelligence or strength but through Faith. Faith in Christ is brought us by the New Covenant. Faith remains the only weapon which humans can rely on to break the chains and to be saved. Atheism leans on the Tree of Knowledge, atheists keep asking stupid questions which the same snake (in Eden) would like them to ask while blinding them from accessing the answers (which are usually simple answers). Those strange questions from the atheists become their own stumbling block. Just as said, the god of world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, atheists themselves are the proof.

 

[eleos1954]

Total Depravity (the first of the five points of Calvinism)

I've heard Calvinists like RC Sproul and say "Total Depravity" can be misunderstood, and a better term might be "Total Inability".

What is the biblical basis for Total Depravity or Total inability.

And what can a person do before they become a christian.

• Total corruption: Sin has affected every aspect of human nature—mind, will, and emotions—making every part of a person corrupted and inclined toward evil.

Romans 3:10-12, states, "there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one".

Depravity refers to a state of moral corruption and wickedness, while inability is the resulting inability to choose good or to save oneself

Jesus is the source of power to overcome evil, primarily through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and faith in His righteousness. This means that while Christians are in a constant spiritual battle, they do not have to be overcome by evil, as Jesus provides the authority and strength to resist it. Victory over sin is not achieved by one's own strength, but through a continuous, vital connection with God.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It's rather a human misunderstanding of what out situation truly is.

The big picture is, both Eden and Earth are sandboxes emulationg the Final Heaven where high intelligence angels live with low intelligence humans. Eden displays where the issue is, the crafty snake (high intelligence angel) defeated humans. The same happened on Earth, all mankind is kept captive (Isaiah 14:17) without exception (that's why each and every single human requires Jesus). Humans should have been destroyed completely through the Flood. Earth however illustrates the ultimate solution. Humans stand no chance to defeat the angels in terms of intelligence and strength, they are hopeless without Jesus.

Jesus' self-sacrifice changed the rule legally and legitimately. Earth is so designed that the angels (fallen ones) will be utterly defeated, not through intelligence or strength but through Faith. Faith in Christ is brought us by the New Covenant. Faith remains the only weapon which humans can rely on to break the chains and to be saved. Atheism leans on the Tree of Knowledge, atheists keep asking stupid questions which the same snake (in Eden) would like them to ask while blinding them from accessing the answers (which are usually simple answers). Those strange questions from the atheists become their own stumbling block. Just as said, the god of world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, atheists themselves are the proof.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Clare73]

Total depravity is basically no free will.

How free are we to live a sinless life?

Total depravity is the total inability to live a sinless life, to cease all sin.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

How free are we to live a sinless life?

Total depravity is the total inability to live a sinless life, to cease all sin.

Thanks for sharing however that is not how Calvinism defines total depravity.

FYI
In Calvinism, depravity refers to Total Depravity, which is the doctrine that sin has affected every part of a person's nature—mind, will, and emotions—making them unable to choose God or contribute to their own salvation apart from God's irresistible grace.

Key difference, inability to chose God.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Total Depravity (the first of the five points of Calvinism)

I've heard Calvinists like RC Sproul and say "Total Depravity" can be misunderstood, and a better term might be "Total Inability".

What is the biblical basis for Total Depravity or Total inability.

And what can a person do before they become a christian.

Calvin, (like everyone else) is partly right. I say partly because Calvin "overlooked" the fact that the unbeliever is blinded by "the god of this world."

SO, is it a question of the person being totally depraved, or the DEVIL?

Obviously, a believer should consider that total depravity is NOT about the person. Calvin missed this point imho

 

[Clare73]

Where does it say we have " no free will"?

Wrong question. . .

Where does Scripture say/present man with an unfettered/free will; i.e., able to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless?

It does not. . .in fact, Scripture presents quite the opposite. . .we are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves are not free.

Free will of man is a human notion (Pelagius), nowhere stated in Scripture and based on the assumption that responsibility for sin requires total free will. . .not in God's order.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Wrong question. . .

Where does Scripture say/present man with an unfettered/free will; i.e., able to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless?

It does not. . .in fact, Scripture presents quite the opposite. . .we are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves are not free.

Free will of man is a human notion (Pelagius), nowhere stated in Scripture and based on the assumption that responsibility for sin requires total free will. . .not in God's order.

Are you stating that our choices are not "free" from the influence of sin? We are, in a spiritual sense, bound by sin, which limits our true freedom thus free will does not exisit?

 

[Clare73]

Are you stating that our choices are not "free" from the influence of sin? We are, in a spiritual sense, bound by sin, which limits our true freedom thus free will does not exisit?

""Free will," a notion of man not stated in Scripture, means the power to make all moral choices.
Pelagius is the author of that human notion, based on his reasoning that to be responsible for sin means man's will must be free.
That notion contradicts Jn 8:34, where Jesus states we are slaves to sin. . .slaves are not free.
By that Jesus is saying that man cannot choose to live a sinless life.
Man does not have that power, he is unable to choose to live a sinless life, and he is responsible for his sin.

God has locked up all men in sin so that only his mercy will save them (Ro 11:32).

 

[Maria Billingsley]

""Free will," a notion of man not stated in Scripture, means the power to make all moral choices.
Pelagius is the author of that human notion, based on his reasoning that to be responsible for sin means man's will must be free.
That notion contradicts Jn 8:34, where Jesus states we are slaves to sin. . .slaves are not free.
By that Jesus is saying that man cannot choose to live a sinless life.
Man does not have that power, he is unable to choose to live a sinless life, and he is responsible for his sin.

God has locked up all men in sin so that only his mercy will save them (Ro 11:32).

I agree we can not be sinless however , I do not agree that we are not able to make a moral choice.
Thanks for sharing!

 

[Clare73]

I agree we can not be sinless however , I do not agree that we are not able to make a moral choice.

Nor do I. . . nor did I say that we cannot.

But we cannot make all moral choices. . .can you choose to life a completely sinless life?
You cannot. . .but you are still responsible for your sin.
Being unable to make all moral choices, our will is not completely free.

God has locked up all men in sin so that only his mercy (through faith in Jesus Christ) will save them (Ro 11:32).

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Nor do I. . . nor did I say that we cannot.

But we cannot make all moral choices. . .can you choose to life a completely sinless life?
You cannot. . .but you are still responsible for your sin.
Being unable to make all moral choices, our will is not completely free.

God has locked up all men in sin so that only his mercy (through faith in Jesus Christ) will save them (Ro 11:32).

It seems you keep folding sinlessness into the conversation. We are not nor can we ever be sinless however, we can make moral choices by the meer fact that we have free will. This does not equate to sinless perfection because even though we have the choice to live morally we are still in the flesh and the flesh is weak. Our Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth paid for this weakness and released His Holy Spirit to guild us in all truth.
Im not a Calvinist so we will continue to go round and round on this.
Thanks for engaging!

 

[Clare73]

It seems you keep folding sinlessness into the conversation. We are not nor can we ever be sinless however, we can make moral choices by the meer fact that we have free will.

"Free will" of man is not in the Bible.
It is a concept of man, with its own definition.
In that definition, it is the ability to make all moral choices.
Man cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to be sinless. . .he does not have a totally "free will," he has a limited "free will," according to that concept of man ("free will"), which is not in the Bible.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"Free will" of man is not in the Bible.
It is a concept of man, with its own definition.
In that definition, it is the ability to make all moral choices.
Man cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to be sinless. . .he does not have a totally "free will," he has a limited "free will," according to that concept of man ("free will"), which is not in the Bible.

A strong verse where God speaks directly about choice through free will and the consequences of that choice is Deuteronomy 30:19 :

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."

Here, God clearly states He presents options ("life and death") and commands His people to "choose life". Even though God clearly stated the choice—"therefore choose life" the subsequent history of Israel shows a recurring pattern of disobedience and choosing "death".

 

[NotreDame]

Wrong question. . .



It does not. . .in fact, Scripture presents quite the opposite. . .we are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves are not free.

The Koine Greek for the word “slave” is “doulos.” A Lexicon illuminates both Biblical and non-Biblical use of the Koine Greek word was literal and metaphorical.

So, Jesus wasn’t necessarily using the word “doulos” or “slave” literally. Equally ambiguous is your assumption Jesus did use the word “doulos”/“slave” to mean and express a forcing, coercing, making them/everyone to sin/commit sin.

The text of the verse itself provides no support for your assumption Jesus was expressing a coercion, a forcing, people to sin. There’s nothing inherent or of necessity in the verses for coercion, a forcing to commit to sin as Jesus’ point or message.

You also assume a literal use of the word “slave” but you’ve not supported your assumption with any evidence this is used literally by Jesus.

A metaphorical use of the word “doulos” is just as applicable in these verses and as compatible and congruous with the text of the verse and surrounding verses.

You’ve forced your interpretation upon the verse, the Greek and text.

Hence, John 8:34 doesn’t necessarily negate free will.

The strongest reading and interpretation is likely John 8:34 simply doesn’t ineluctably settle the issue of free will or determinism theologically from a Biblical approach. John 8:34 doesn’t clearly announce a determinism to the exclusion of free will. Nethier does John 8:34 announce a free will to the exclusion of determinism.

Simply, John didn’t at all illuminate the mechanism for “habitual sin” (the Koine Greek is “habitual sin(s)l which renders a “slave to sin.” John was only stating thst however “habitual sin” occurs or manifests in a person’s life makes them a “slave to sin.”

It is worth noting and observing a free will to habitual sin, where free will is the person has the ability and power to perfom the sinful acr(s) or refrain from doing so, they are not coerced to sin, forced to sin, is compatible with the text of the verse and Koine Greek used.

Regardless. John 8:34 isn’t a declaration for or against free will/determinism.

Where does Scripture say/present man with an unfettered/free will; i.e., able to make all moral choices, including the choice to be sinless?

“Unfettered/free will”? Whose position are you addressing? Mara didn’t use the qualifier “unfettered.”

Seems you are debating someone else from a prior encounter and not Mara presently in this thread.

Free will is the ability to perform an act or refrain from performing some act without being forced, coerced, by some being, force, cause. It is in the person’s power to perform the act or refrain from performing the act.

I’m unaware of any sagacious, astute, proponent of free will that claims “unfettered.” Simply because, there are many factors, variables, influences to one’s ability to perform an act in their power to perform it or refrain from it.

If you want to address someone else’s or some other notion of “unfettered free will,” then fine but dispense with the idea you’ve actually addressed “free will” as others here have used the phrase, especially myself.

And your question “is the wrong question,” as you phrased it to another poster. People can be “able to make all moral choices” but they will always use their ability to at least least one occasion choose to perform a sinful act.

Free will of man is a human notion (Pelagius), nowhere stated in Scripture and based on the assumption that responsibility for sin requires total free will. . .not in God's order.

Not at all. The notion of free will preceded Pelagius by several centuries, was in existence during OT Judaism (before the NT), and Pelagius’ view of free will was more nuanced than you presented here.

In addition, there are verses where “free will” is inherent or implied in Scripture.

 

[NotreDame]

Man cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to be sinless. . .he does not have a totally "free will," he has a limited "free will," according to that concept of man ("free will"), which is not in the Bible.

You are incorrectly equivocating “make all moral choices” with “cannot choose to be sinless.”

People can make all moral choices and will choose to perform at least 1 immoral act and do so freely.

Next, what’s up with the “totally” qualifier? Mara didn’t take such a position and ostensibly you’re imposing a different argument than Mara’s with your replies.

Mara didn’t assert “totally.”

"Free will" of man is not in the Bible.
It is a concept of man, with its own definition.
In that definition, it is the ability to make all moral choices.

What? What is the source you are relying upon for this notion of “free will”? I’ve never read anywhere free will defined this way.

 

[NotreDame]

Are you stating that our choices are not "free" from the influence of sin? We are, in a spiritual sense, bound by sin, which limits our true freedom thus free will does not exisit?

Yes, @Clare73 added qualifing language of “unfettered” in relation to “free will” that you’ve never invoked!

In other words, her reply is wrapped up in a reply to an argument you never espoused, “unfettered” free will. Ostensibly, she’s superimposed her own notions or perhaps someone else’s view is free will as “unfettered” onto your view as she replied to your view.

Which is to say she replied to your post but not your substantive position since you didn’t invoke a “unfettered”’free will.