Theology Club: Total Depravity

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Total inability would fit the acronym

Works for me. The TULIP acrostic appeared around the first decade of the 1900s so we need not be locked into it and I can think of other ways of remembering the five points of the doctrines of grace. Unfortunately, not a few persons do not take the time to dig a bit deeper to understand the meanings of the terms being used. Confusion then abounds. Internet forums are of no help since rhetoric often substitutes for personal study. As the saying goes, we are entertaining ourselves to death. In my opinion no one should be permitted to assert "Calvinists believe this or that" until they affirm they have read and carefully studied the Westminster Confession of Faith. Rather they honestly ask sincere questions versus presuming to "know" something about Calvinism.

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

Man's inability to save himself, while complete [total] is not equatable to utter depravity. Unless depravity meant something else when "TULIP" was coined.

 

[Nang]

"Inability" does not do it for me, because it denotes a lack of power, but falls short of fully describing the corruption and spiritual rot that brings about God's sentence of death.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Man's inability to save himself, while complete [total] is not equatable to utter depravity. Unless depravity meant something else when "TULIP" was coined.

I agree. Total depravity does not mean utter depravity and this has been noted several times in this thread. It just is not sinking in with some folks.

AMR

 

[Nang]

I agree. Total depravity does not mean utter depravity and this has been noted several times in this thread. It just is not sinking in with some folks.

AMR

Just agreed to between you and Lighthouse, eh?

Some folks I suppose, like me, are "hyper" for thinking Total Depravity is more extreme than just creaturely inability?

So be it . . .

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Just agreed to between you and Lighthouse, eh?

Some folks I suppose, like me, are "hyper" for thinking Total Depravity is more extreme than just creaturely inability?

So be it . . .

Huh? I do not know what you mean, Nang. I was only responding to the observation LH made, and observation coming before your post so I do not think it was directed to you. I was affirming what so many are misunderstanding in this thread, that is, total depravity does not mean utter depravity. I had not even read your post when making my response to LH, so I do not know why you think I am making some negative statement about your view.

I think we are aligned on what total depravity means, Nang. If you will look at my posts previously above, I plainly state that the totally depraved can only sin more or sin less. Is that not clearly more than "creaturely inability"? Of course it is.

Yes, I saw that LH may have wanted to limit total depravity to only the notion of whether or not one could save himself, but my response keeps the focus on what has been discussed earlier. I had no intention of agreeing that total depravity only relates to salvific decision making.

AMR

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Huh? I do not know what you mean, Nang. I was only responding to the observation LH made, and observation coming before your post so I do not think it was directed to you. I was affirming what so many are misunderstanding in this thread, that is, total depravity does not mean utter depravity. I had not even read your post when making my response to LH, so I do not know why you think I am making some negative statement about your view.

I think we are aligned on what total depravity means, Nang. If you will look at my posts previously above, I plainly state that the totally depraved can only sin more or sin less. Is that not clearly more than "creaturely inability"? Of course it is.

Yes, I saw that LH may have wanted to limit total depravity to only the notion of whether or not one could save himself, but my response keeps the focus on what has been discussed earlier. I had no intention of agreeing that total depravity only relates to salvific decision making.

AMR

ut·ter
adjective: utter

complete; absolute.

"Charles stared at her in utter amazement"

<TABLE class="vk_tbl vk_gy"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px" class=lr_dct_nyms_ttl>synonyms:</TD><TD>complete, total, absolute, thorough, perfect, downright, out-and-out, outright, thoroughgoing, all-out, sheer, arrant, wholesale, rank, pure, real, veritable, consummate, categorical, unmitigated, unqualified, unadulterated, unalloyed </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I think we're straining here to refine a definition to make "Lighthouse" happy. Whether we say Total Depravity or Utter Depravity, we are saying the same thing. I believe you, Nang and I are pretty much on the same page here. Lighthouse wants to redefine terms to legitimize the doctrine of Free Will, which means the gospel of works. Free Will and Election (the gospel of grace) are incompatible. This is where this argument is heading it seems to me.

 

[Lighthouse]

Huh? I do not know what you mean, Nang. I was only responding to the observation LH made, and observation coming before your post so I do not think it was directed to you. I was affirming what so many are misunderstanding in this thread, that is, total depravity does not mean utter depravity. I had not even read your post when making my response to LH, so I do not know why you think I am making some negative statement about your view.

I think we are aligned on what total depravity means, Nang. If you will look at my posts previously above, I plainly state that the totally depraved can only sin more or sin less. Is that not clearly more than "creaturely inability"? Of course it is.

Yes, I saw that LH may have wanted to limit total depravity to only the notion of whether or not one could save himself, but my response keeps the focus on what has been discussed earlier. I had no intention of agreeing that total depravity only relates to salvific decision making.

AMR

Those in a state of unrighteousness can only be unrighteous, and all unrighteousness is sin.

 

[Totton Linnet]

What would there be to judge? why would some be held to greater or lesser account? some recieving many stripes some recieving fewer stripes?

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

What would there be to judge? why would some be held to greater or lesser account? some recieving many stripes some recieving fewer stripes?

I don't understand your questions.

 

[Nang]

I think we are aligned on what total depravity means, Nang.

We are not aligned, if you reduce depravity to describe inability.

If you will look at my posts previously above, I plainly state that the totally depraved can only sin more or sin less. Is that not clearly more than "creaturely inability"? Of course it is.

What I say. Then why go along with agreeing that Total Depravity might be taught as Total Inability?

"Creaturely inability" might be applied to brute beasts, but "total depravity" is the fallen and sinful condition on men made in the image of God.

Nang

 

[intojoy]

We are not aligned, if you reduce depravity to describe inability.









What I say. Then why go along with agreeing that Total Depravity might be taught as Total Inability?



"Creaturely inability" might be applied to brute beasts, but "total depravity" is the fallen and sinful condition on men made in the image of God.



Nang

Wrong. There is No salvation offered to beasts. There is no salvation offered to angels. Only one creation is made in the image oh the creator and when ever salvation, election, depravity etc can be discussed, it must be understood in its only context, within man.
Total inability is better than total depravity just like words spoken in the geek language can be fully realized by designated specific words, we can in the case of total depravity use another English term to clarify what is being taught.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Totton Linnet]

I don't understand your questions.

Well total is total dear Nang...there is only one total, yet we see [or we think we see] some will be punished more than others.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Wrong. There is No salvation offered to beasts. There is no salvation offered to angels. Only one creation is made in the image oh the creator and when ever salvation, election, depravity etc can be discussed, it must be understood in its only context, within man.
Total inability is better than total depravity just like words spoken in the geek language can be fully realized by designated specific words, we can in the case of total depravity use another English term to clarify what is being taught.

Posted from the TOL App!

Total Inability is an aspect of Total Depravity, but isn't totally descriptive of the theological meaning. Total Depravity perfectly describes our need for a Redeemer. As depraved individuals, we are incapable of saving ourselves (gospel of works).

 

[Nang]

Well total is total dear Nang...there is only one total, yet we see [or we think we see] some will be punished more than others.

I am not as interested in discussing "total" versus "utter" than I am concerned with replacing "depravity" with "inability."

 

[Nang]

Total Inability is an aspect of Total Depravity,

This is a good answer . . .

 

[Desert Reign]

I am not as interested in discussing "total" versus "utter" than I am concerned with replacing "depravity" with "inability."

The solution is simple. Depravity is defined essentially as an inability to seek the righteous God. That is just a definition. It doesn't matter if you murder or steal someone else's wife or take a pen home from work or say 'boo' to a goose. A person who has sex with a baby is not depraved because he does so. Nope. No one would think of him/her as depraved, would they? What makes them depraved is that they cannot seek God.

What you need to do is just change your erroneous attitude to what constitutes fallenness. If a person were able to seek God but still enjoy the occasional cavort with the neighbour, then really all would be well.

 

[Nang]

The solution is simple. Depravity is defined essentially as an inability to seek the righteous God. That is just a definition. It doesn't matter if you murder or steal someone else's wife or take a pen home from work or say 'boo' to a goose. A person who has sex with a baby is not depraved because he does so. Nope. No one would think of him/her as depraved, would they? What makes them depraved is that they cannot seek God.

What you need to do is just change your erroneous attitude to what constitutes fallenness. If a person were able to seek God but still enjoy the occasional cavort with the neighbour, then really all would be well.

You overlook the "will not seek God" part.

To say a sinner cannot or is unable to seek God is meant to give him some moral excuse.

His not willing to seek God leaves him without excuse.

Depraved sinners are not willing to seek God, because they possess no virtue or love for God. They remain enslaved to sin, death and the devil and under the curse of enmity against God.

 

[intojoy]

You overlook the "will not seek God" part.



To say a sinner cannot or is unable to seek God is meant to give him some moral excuse.



His not willing to seek God leaves him without excuse.



Depraved sinners are not willing to seek God, because they possess no virtue or love for God. They remain enslaved to sin, death and the devil and under the curse of enmity against God.

Good point. Inability doesn't quite mean that as completely as depravity. You depraved soul. Haha. But the gift isn't faith to believe, the gift is salvation in my observation.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am not as interested in discussing "total" versus "utter" than I am concerned with replacing "depravity" with "inability."

I like the "inability" aspect as it makes the point that no one is able to save themselves, even when God commands the sinner repent and believe. This drives home the fact that what they ought to do in no way implies that they can do so. "Ought" simply does not imply "can", despite the wishful thinking by Arminians, Romanists, etc.

AMR