Total Depravity

[Carbon]

In the Westminister Confession, the doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability) is stated as follows: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Agree, disagree?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That is the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 9, sec. 3.

The language is truly dated (although traditionalists prefer that), so here it is in modern English, produced by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Michigan (2010; 3rd ed.):

Man fell into a state of sin by his disobedience and so completely lost his ability to will any spiritual good involving salvation. Consequently, fallen man is by nature completely opposed to spiritual good, dead in sin, and unable by his own strength either to convert himself or to prepare himself for conversion.
​

 

[JIM]

In the Westminister Confession, the doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability) is stated as follows: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Agree, disagree?

Disagree!!

 

[fastfredy0]

In the Westminister Confession, the doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability) is stated as follows: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Agree, disagree?

AGREE

Romans 3:11 No one understands [divine things]; no one seeks for God. [unless the Holy Spirit leads them to Christ] 12 All have turned aside; together they have gone wrong and have become unprofitable and worthless; no one does right, not even one!

John 1:12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh [the flesh is carnal and flesh always lusteth against the Spirit], nor of the will of man, but of GOD. Martin Luther: they become the sons of God, neither by the birth of the flesh, nor by a devoted observance of the law, nor by any devoted human effort whatever, but by a Divine birth only. Those three negative statements stress the fact that salvation is not obtainable through any racial or ethnic heritage ( blood ), personal desire ( flesh ), or man-made system ( man ).
John 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.”

 

[Arial]

In the Westminister Confession, the doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability) is stated as follows: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Agree, disagree?

Agree.

 

[Eleanor]

Disagree!!

"By nature, objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3) . . .we are born with our nature.

 

[Carbon]

Disagree!!

I never would have expected different.

 

[makesends]

In the Westminister Confession, the doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability) is stated as follows: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Agree, disagree?

From a logical POV, (presuming, of course, that God is omnipotent first cause, and presuming any logical implications of that fact), there is abundant reason to agree with the Westminster there, and with Scripture's statements to the subject of Total Inability. Logically, that is, man has no ability in and of himself, to any good, apart from God "in whom we live and move and have our being". It is altogether reasonable to assume that though mankind is made in the image of God, that it makes no implication that he is in and of himself good, nor independent, in the way God is. (The only way that even freewill of the usual use is implied is by the assumption that freewill is the only way for a man to be morally responsible for his actions (which, as has been shown elsewhere, is self-contradictory, considering the very meaning they intend by "freewill"). )

But that he is in Adam identified with enmity against God, by both inherited effect and by imputation, and which fact is affirmed by his own continual practice, places him wholly against God, corrupt to the core, no matter what good deeds he is credited with by his own conscience or by the assessments of others. This is an enormous step beyond mere innocence, such as instinctive beasts have, or even such as Adam had before his disobedience.

Fallen man is not just morally bent --he is broken, no longer capable of moral good.

 

[JIM]

"By nature, objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3) . . .we are born with our nature.

Our nature is precisely that which God created. It can be no other. No one, other than God Himself, has the power and authority to change what He created. Now it is true that by nature we choose to obey or to disobey. That is called free-will. And in disobeying, which everyone who lives long enough will disobey, we sin and become objects of wrath.

 

[JIM]

I never would have expected different.

Thank you. I take that as a compliment.

 

[JIM]

From a logical POV, (presuming, of course, that God is omnipotent first cause, and presuming any logical implications of that fact), there is abundant reason to agree with the Westminster there, and with Scripture's statements to the subject of Total Inability. Logically, that is, man has no ability in and of himself, to any good, apart from God "in whom we live and move and have our being". It is altogether reasonable to assume that though mankind is made in the image of God, that it makes no implication that he is in and of himself good, nor independent, in the way God is. (The only way that even freewill of the usual use is implied is by the assumption that freewill is the only way for a man to be morally responsible for his actions (which, as has been shown elsewhere, is self-contradictory, considering the very meaning they intend by "freewill"). )

But that he is in Adam identified with enmity against God, by both inherited effect and by imputation, and which fact is affirmed by his own continual practice, places him wholly against God, corrupt to the core, no matter what good deeds he is credited with by his own conscience or by the assessments of others. This is an enormous step beyond mere innocence, such as instinctive beasts have, or even such as Adam had before his disobedience.

Fallen man is not just morally bent --he is broken, no longer capable of moral good.

God has told us to honor our parents. If we do that, even before becoming a child of God, is that not a moral good? In fact when one, who has not yet been saved or even one who never is saved, does as God commands in one or more of His law, is that not a moral good? Does God really count the love of his wife by a man not regenerated to be a sin, to not be a moral good? What man is not capable of, by his own choice and actions, is absolute, complete and perfect moral good.

 

[makesends]

God has told us to honor our parents. If we do that, even before becoming a child of God, is that not a moral good? In fact when one, who has not yet been saved or even one who never is saved, does as God commands in one or more of His law, is that not a moral good?

Of course it is morally good. I have not said otherwise. What I have said, though, is that one's ability to do that moral good is not in and of that one's fallen nature. Even in regenerated men, the good that they do is of God.

But what fallen man does, that we can rightly call good, does not credit them, but God, because what good thing they do is rotten at the core.

Does God really count the love of his wife by a man not regenerated to be a sin, to not be a moral good? What man is not capable of, by his own choice and actions, is absolute, complete and perfect moral good.

In fact, the love of a mother for her child, as shown in her care for that child's wellbeing, being a very good thing, and her choices in keeping with that, also being very good, are still rotten at the core. It is by the grace of God that she is even able to breathe, nevermind to care for her child.

A stark display of this is seen in the emotional, even desperate, invitation of a person to Jesus Christ, to come into their being and to take over their life as Lord, only later to turn their back on Him, and to go their own way, even unto death. If their choice there is not by God's doing, it was worthless and empty.

 

[Eleanor]

Our nature is precisely that which God created. It can be no other. No one, other than God Himself, has the power and authority to change what He created. Now it is true that by nature we choose to obey or to disobey. That is called free-will. And in disobeying, which everyone who lives long enough will disobey, we sin and become objects of wrath.

Because of Adam, our nature is now sinful (Ro 8:5-8, 6-36, Col 1:10-12, Eph 4:22-27, Gal 5:17-25), an object of God's wrath (Eph 2:3).

 

[CrowCross]

In the Westminister Confession, the doctrine of Total Depravity (Total Inability) is stated as follows: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Agree, disagree?

Agree.

here is yet another verse

John 6:65
Then Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.”

 

[JIM]

Anoth

Because of Adam, our nature is now sinful (Ro 8:5-8, 6-36, Col 1:10-12, Eph 4:22-27, Gal 5:17-25), an object of God's wrath (Eph 2:-3).

Not a single one of those passages even mention Adam. Moreover, not a single one of them state or even suggest that our condition is "because of Adam".

 

[Eleanor]

Anoth

Not a single one of those passages even mention Adam.

Nor does a single passage even mention the Trinity, or state that God is sovereign.

Moreover, not a single one of them state or even suggest that our condition is "because of Adam".

Read Scripture much?

Study Ro 5:12-21.

Being Scripturally informed is always helpful in defending Scripture.

 

[JIM]

Not a single passage even mentions the Trinity, nor states that God is sovereign.

Read Scripture much?

Study Ro 5:12-21.

One really needs to be more Scripturally informed if one wishes to discuss Scripture.

I would respond in the same derogatory manner, but I most likely, being a non-Calvinistic, get banned for it.

Oh what the heck. I will just do it anyway. You need to take your own advice. You may read a lot, but you understand little.

And with that I bid you adieu. And as I have with Josheb, I will simply not bother to respond to your defamatory and demeaning replies.

 

[Eleanor]

I would respond in the same derogatory manner, but I most likely, being a non-Calvinistic, get banned for it.

Oh what the heck. I will just do it anyway. You need to take your own advice. You may read a lot, but you understand little.

Would that also apply to your understanding of Ro 5:12-21?

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

And with that I bid you adieu. And as I have with Josheb, I will simply not bother to respond to your defamatory and demeaning replies.

 

[makesends]

sAnoth

Not a single one of those passages even mention Adam. Moreover, not a single one of them state or even suggest that our condition is "because of Adam".

@Eleanor may post a narrow range of verses within a larger passage and larger context. The fact that the narrow range she posted doesn't specifically mention something you expected it to, does not mean that she did not intend the context to be applicable in placing meaning to the narrow reference. I venture to say that she never posts a single verse to be taken out of context.

She posted what she did to show a principle, which, in context describe exactly what happened because of Adam. I think, if you were so inclined, you would have looked for that and understood that. But you don't want to understand. You are antagonistic to her, something analogous to how the mind of flesh is at enmity with God, and has no desire to obey or submit to God.

 

[JIM]

She posted what she did to show a principle, which, in context describe exactly what happened because of Adam. I

Nothing happened because of Adam. Whatever would have happened to all men because of Adam was completely negated for all men because of Jesus (Rom 5:12-19).

think, if you were so inclined, you would have looked for that and understood that. But you don't want to understand. You are antagonistic to her,

You mean like you and she are to me?

something analogous to how the mind of flesh is at enmity with God, and has no desire to obey or submit to God.

Is that a description of you?