Is Total Depravity a required belief?

[Carbon]

It does...

But because I'm a Fundamentalist, I often keep things basic. This is where most Christians are practically Calvinists; on the Fundamental level, not the critical level. Even @PeanutGallery believes in total depravity...

Calvinists snd Arminians both believe in total depravity. Ask them to define it for you, and then you will see the difference.

You will see “total depravity” does not mean total depravity

 

[ReverendRV]

Calvinists snd Arminians both believe in total depravity. Ask them to define it for you, and then you will see the difference.

You will see “total depravity” does not mean total depravity

So let's talk about @PeanutGallery 's total depravity; what is it? It's not Calvin's Total Depravity or Arminius' Total Depravity...

I suspect it's Native Depravity along with our Inability to Work and Merit Christ's Righteousness...

 

[PeanutGallery]

It does...

But because I'm a Fundamentalist, I often keep things basic. This is where most Christians are practically Calvinists; on the Fundamental level, not the critical level. Even @PeanutGallery believes in total depravity...

totally depraved in that a person cannot save himself, but can believe the gospel; not TULIP's Totally Depraved in that a person cannot believe the gospel without first being regenerated.
Big difference between 'totally depraved' and 'Totally Depraved',

 

[Carbon]

So let's talk about @PeanutGallery 's total depravity; what is it? It's not Calvin's Total Depravity or Arminius' Total Depravity...

PG has been around a long time and knows what he believes, so I will let him answer if he so desires to. I won’t speak for him as he knows what he believes and can explain it well.

But I believe being totally depraved would be along the lines of being sick, or drowning, being unable to save themselves unless God intervenes, prevenient grace.

I suspect it's Native Depravity along with our Inability to Work and Merit Christ's Righteousness...

 

[ReverendRV]

totally depraved in that a person cannot save himself, but can believe the gospel; not TULIP's Totally Depraved in that a person cannot believe the gospel without first being regenerated.
Big difference between 'totally depraved' and 'Totally Depraved',

That's not Calvin's Total Depravity, his is there's nothing you do that meets God's standard of Righteousness. We fall short of the Glory of God, and this belief is required of us to be Saved. But your Believing the Gospel IS meeting God's Standard, because it keeps the First Commandment. There is no one who does Good, no not One; but believing the Gospel is something Good you do, right? After Grace? Sure, you can Believe...

Your version of total depravity is not Total. How is your version total in any sense? Your version is partial, not total. It is Nominal Depravity...

 

[makesends]

It does...

But because I'm a Fundamentalist, I often keep things basic. This is where most Christians are practically Calvinists; on the Fundamental level, not the critical level. Even @PeanutGallery believes in total depravity...

Agreed. And my Wesleyo-methodist mother prayed like a Calvinist!

 

[ReverendRV]

Agreed. And my Wesleyo-methodist mother prayed like a Calvinist!

This is the point my OP wants to make...

 

[fastfredy0]

keep finding myself going back to what is truly basic to the Gospel. I agree that knowledge of certain facts —or rather, belief that certain facts are true— is necessary

Agreed .... now the difficult part... what facts?

but to say that "understanding" of certain facts is necessary, can too easily imply degree of understanding.

There is a degree of understanding needed provided by God to be prove that God has saved you. The degree of understanding cannot be known. That being said, I have to think the degree of understanding surpasses the capability of someone who is "brain dead" which you elude to in your post (giggle).

I do, however, suppose that to the degree that our intellect is capable of working with our regenerated heart, we are taught what is necessary. But be careful that we don't depend on that, rather than on God himself, for 'salvific understanding'.

Agreed. We have varying degrees of faith.

SUMMARY (IMO)
Knowledge of faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”
Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics writes: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles.

Aside: When you were talking about a "brain dead" person I hope you weren't referring to me. That is against Terms of Service (giggle)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

This is ALSO hitting the nail on the head, more is required than this; the knowledge that we're not Saved by Works is needed to be factored in. When this is factored in, Total Depravity rises to the top...

Conviction of SIN, and of Judgement makes it absolutely clear that we're NOT saved, and that it's utterly necessary to do something about that. "Theology" isn't required.

 

[PeanutGallery]

That's not Calvin's Total Depravity, his is there's nothing you do that meets God's standard of Righteousness.

Right; Totally Depraved to the point where one cannot meet God's standard of Righteousness.

We fall short of the Glory of God, and this belief is required of us to be Saved.

Yep:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

But your Believing the Gospel IS meeting God's Standard, because it keeps the First Commandment

"Believing the Gospel IS meeting God's Standard" is your premise.

There is no one who does Good, no not One;

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

... but believing the Gospel is something Good you do, right?

Your premise.

After Grace? Sure, you can Believe...

God's grace: creation testifying, law written in the heart, conscience bearing witness, Holy Spirit reproving, the gospel the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes.

One can believe or reject God's grace.

 

[ReverendRV]

Conviction of SIN, and of Judgement makes it absolutely clear that we're NOT saved, and that it's utterly necessary to do something about that. "Theology" isn't required.

Right, Theology is not required. The Knowledge of our Sin is required, right? The Theology of Sin is not required. The Theology of Total Inability is not required, but the Knowledge that no on does Good is required; right?

 

[His clay]

Do Christians need to accept the Doctrine of Total Depravity?

I've read a few responses, and the majority seem to answer with a no.

I'm going to answer with a yes, but then I need to qualify it.
The doctrine of total depravity is a doctrine held by both Calvinists and Classical Arminians. There is an important reason why it is critical, and this takes me back to the controversy between Luther and Erasmus. If memory serves, Luther congratulated Erasmus on locating the critical point of conflict. And it revolves around the self-sufficiency of the will vs the bondage of the will (as Luther put it). The doctrine of total depravity gets to the very heart of the issue, which is this. For true salvation to occur, and for one to have genuine, empty-handed faith, self-sufficiency must be destroyed, and the doctrine of depravity is the nuke.

The critical issue is this. One may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment. Another may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of utter self ruin, and thusly faith is completely in Christ and His work and merit with no divided allegiance. The eternal danger is that one may use religious language, Christian language, but in the end their "faith" is a self-salvation because of the inherent self-sufficient nature of the will they describe. Equivocation here (over the very meaning and essence of "faith") may be eternally damning. All of this connects to the doctrine of depravity and its connection to the will.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The critical issue is this. One may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment.

SO it's not "Faith" at all - just "religious rhetoric".

 

[ReverendRV]

I've read a few responses, and the majority seem to answer with a no.

I'm going to answer with a yes, but then I need to qualify it.
The doctrine of total depravity is a doctrine held by both Calvinists and Classical Arminians. There is an important reason why it is critical, and this takes me back to the controversy between Luther and Erasmus. If memory serves, Luther congratulated Erasmus on locating the critical point of conflict. And it revolves around the self-sufficiency of the will vs the bondage of the will (as Luther put it). The doctrine of total depravity gets to the very heart of the issue, which is this. For true salvation to occur, and for one to have genuine, empty-handed faith, self-sufficiency must be destroyed, and the doctrine of depravity is the nuke.

The critical issue is this. One may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment. Another may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of utter self ruin, and thusly faith is completely in Christ and His work and merit with no divided allegiance. The eternal danger is that one may use religious language, Christian language, but in the end their "faith" is a self-salvation because of the inherent self-sufficient nature of the will they describe. Equivocation here (over the very meaning and essence of "faith") may be eternally damning. All of this connects to the doctrine of depravity and its connection to the will.

I framed the OP in a way there's no wrong answer; so you're right. I'm trying to say we all need to accept Total Depravity in a 'not by Works' sense. Since Salvation is not by Merit, how could Total Depravity be wrong?

 

[His clay]

SO it's not "Faith" at all - just "religious rhetoric".

Straw man fallacy, misrepresentation via reductionism

 

[makesends]

His clay said:
The critical issue is this. One may affirm the need for faith, but then "faith" is couched in terms of self-accomplishment.

Bob Carabbio said:
SO it's not "Faith" at all - just "religious rhetoric".

Straw man fallacy, misrepresentation via reductionism

I think you misunderstood his post. @Bob Carabbio was agreeing with you, I think. He was describing that supposed 'faith' affirmed by the pretender that you also had described as false. —Not faith at all.

For once Bob was being agreeable —not irascible and mean. Give him a break! (Well, ok, yes, he was, as always, sarcastic.)

 

[Red Baker]

Is Total Depravity a required belief?

For what? For salvation from sin and condemnation? The answer to that question would be no. There are no requirements on man's part to do, before one is born again.

To be saved with a true knowledge of the truth? The answer to that question would be yes.

1st Timothy 4:13-16~"Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

One more;

Acts 2:40~"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

 

[makesends]

For what? For salvation from sin and condemnation? The answer to that question would be no. There are no requirements on man's part to do, before one is born again.

To be saved with a true knowledge of the truth? The answer to that question would be yes.

I agree completely. Here and on probably every other Christian/religious forum we hear the complaint, "...but that is not expedient for comfort (or variously, motivation to obey, belief, self-esteem, etc etc). I don't want religion. We don't need theology."

The notion that truth is unnecessary and at times counter-productive is false. There are times when the uninhibited and choleric would do well to shut up, but the truth is only 'counter-productive' against the production of falsehood and false foundations and false pursuits and the workings of the Romans 8 "mind of flesh".

 

[atpollard]

Agreed .... now the difficult part... what facts?

"Jesus loves you, but I am His favorite" ... as EACH person comes to this realization (that THEY are more important to Jesus than His own life was), they are transformed inside - on a fundamental level.

[Romans 8:31-39] What shall we say about such wonderful things as these? If God is for us, who can ever be against us? Since he did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, won't he also give us everything else? Who dares accuse us whom God has chosen for his own? No one--for God himself has given us right standing with himself. Who then will condemn us? No one--for Christ Jesus died for us and was raised to life for us, and he is sitting in the place of honor at God's right hand, pleading for us.
Can anything ever separate us from Christ's love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or hungry, or destitute, or in danger, or threatened with death? (As the Scriptures say, "For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.") No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.
And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God's love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow--not even the powers of hell can separate us from God's love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below--indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[1 John 4:10] In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[fastfredy0]

"Jesus loves you, but I am His favorite"

I don't know if God has favorites among the elect. If He does I'm sure He favors you over me.