My take on total depravity

tonychanyt

24/7 Christian
Oct 2, 2011
3,815
963
Toronto
Visit site
✟93,370.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is the doctrine of total depravity true?

I don't know. When it comes to doctrine, I prefer to stick to the wording in the Bible. The term total depravity is not in the Bible, so I would not bother using it in the formal doctrinal sense. I know that without God's grace, no one is righteous, so I would not try to generalize that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,258
5,748
68
Pennsylvania
✟800,552.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Is the doctrine of total depravity true?

I don't know. When it comes to doctrine, I prefer to stick to the wording in the Bible. The term total depravity is not in the Bible, so I would not bother using it in the formal doctrinal sense. I know that without God's grace, no one is righteous, so I would not try to generalize that.
Ha! Actually the Bible wording is more emphatic than that! But you are right, and I'd guess that most Reformed/Calvinists would prefer that Total Inability was used. Truth is, though, "total inability" sounds neutral to me. Total Depravity invokes the notion of the root being rotten.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: tonychanyt
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,765
6,170
Massachusetts
✟589,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Possibly both.

About how able we are >

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God." (2 Corinthians 3:5)

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,765
6,170
Massachusetts
✟589,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I looked at it. I didn't get a clear understanding of what you and the others are talking about, there. So, if following up means to comment on what I don't understand . . . you don't need me to do that.

Another item > you mention if John Calvin was logical, maybe you mean. Well, I did not know John personally . . . or Mr. Aristotle; so there is maybe no way I could really understand what they mean. Because the "logic" I check for is the "therefore" how they live because of what they believe and say, or at least how they say therefore to live because of what they are saying.

In the Bible we often see theo-logic: of what is true theologically, then "therefore" . . . or "wherefore" . . . what to do, how to live, how to love.

So, how love-logical were John or Mr. Aristotle?? How much did they connect their things to how to become and to love like Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,765
6,170
Massachusetts
✟589,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Is the doctrine of total depravity true?

I don't know. When it comes to doctrine, I prefer to stick to the wording in the Bible. The term total depravity is not in the Bible, so I would not bother using it in the formal doctrinal sense. I know that without God's grace, no one is righteous, so I would not try to generalize that.
How about if we take a scripture and evaluate "total depravity" in comparison with that scripture? Of course, which meaning of total depravity do we use?

disabled by sin so a human is incapable of doing God's will?

human so the person does not have the Creator's ability to do things how our Creator desires?

both

I choose to use "both" as my definition.

So, does this fit logically with Romans 9:21? >

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21)

From this, I see that God is our Potter. A potter decides and controls what he does with each lump of clay. So - - "therefore", maybe we can say . . . it does not matter how much ability the clay has to do whatever with its own self, since the clay does not make the choices! And the ability of our Potter is what this is all about.

Therefore, perhaps, the ongoing total depravity discussion can not ever be resolved, if none of the for or against arguments can be correct. I mean, if the person's ability does not decide anything, but the Potter decides: His decision does not depend on the ability of each piece of clay, after all.

A piece of clay can be disabled by sin and/or lacking ability because of being human. Either way or both, the human's capability does not matter. Our Potter is the One with His ability to decide how He personally forms each vessel for its purpose.

And so, what is the logical "therefore", if none of our ability or disability matters but it is all a matter of God's ability?

"Therefore submit to God" (in James 4:7), because, after all, our own ability is not really controlling anything, anyway. And we have real love only in submission to God so we share His with Him.

Therefore, "Do not fret" (in Psalm 37:1) > but depend on the LORD, rather than fret and fuss about, and try to force, people and things to happen . . . since all is managed according to God's ability. Just discover your part, humbly and patiently, how He has us become all-loving in sharing with Him.

"clothe yourselves with humility" > in 1 Peter 5:5. God is all-loving, not at all conceited; this is included in His meaning of humble, i.e., how He is so humble. Do John and Mr. Aristotle talk about this, in their "logic"?

"let patience have its perfect work" > in James 1:4. And, by the way, if the work is "perfect", it is of God's ability, not how humans can put on some acting of being patient. God's patience is pleasant and steady for how to love any person, being all-loving . . . only possible in sharing with God, after God changes us to this.

So, to me this is some of the love-logic I see among various scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0