• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Total Depravity

On your view, as expressed here, the moral value of at least some things is determined without reference to God, which means at least some moral order is autonomous, grounded in something other than God—which opens a fascinating can of worms and creates a host of thorny dilemmas, especially theological. (For example, just imagine the impact of this on the doctrine of divine sovereignty.)
I have no idea why you would jump to such a conclusion. It isn't logical and it is nitpicking. You are bringing things into the conversation that aren't even being discussed such as God being the source of all goodness and that what is morally good is determined by God---that He is the source of all that is good. It doesn't need to be discussed as it is understood in defining TD. The question of the OP deals with does total depravity mean people can't do anything morally good?

There are things that are good and to say they are inherently good is accurate. That they are good because they are in agreement with the character of God, and are what He expects of us as His image bearers, is not relevant to what is being discussed. The issue and question is are they good enough to save? The answer is a resounding no. They come from an unregenerate sinner who may save a life today and take a life tomorrow. They do not change who the creature is. Plus TD as @Josheb has pointed out, is specifically dealing with fallen man's inability to choose Christ. It sets the biblical groundwork for the rest of the doctrines concerning election.

Surely in your world there are things you consider good because they are good. Surely it is good to meet the needs of orphans and widows.

Whether something is a good thing or not is not the problem. The problem is not with the good that an unregenerate person does, the problem is within them. They are an unregenerate sinner.
 
Last edited:
How is the guilt of Adam's trespass imputed to all mankind? Through covenant union, insofar as he is the federal head of fallen humanity—just as Christ is the head of redeemed humanity, and his righteousness is imputed to them. We are counted as guilty by virtue of the disobedience of the first Adam, and we are counted as righteous by virtue of the obedience of the last Adam.
That makes guilt of Adam's sin through descent (inheritance), in contradiction of Eze 18:20.

Adam's sin is imputed just as Christ's righteousness is imputed. Neither are inherited by descent, as is our fallen nature.
 
That makes guilt of Adam's sin through descent (inheritance), in contradiction of Eze 18:20.

Adam's sin is imputed just as Christ's righteousness is imputed. Neither are inherited by descent, as is our fallen nature.
Ummm ... I think there is a distinction here.

Ezekiel 18:19-23 [NASB20]
19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not suffer [the punishment] for the father's guilt?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness [and] has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall certainly live. 20 "The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer [the punishment] for the father's guilt, nor will a father suffer [the punishment] for the son's guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21 "But if the wicked person turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 22 "All his offenses which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?

The "guilt" (curse) is passed from generation to generation [as the children of an alcoholic carry the scars of being raised under alcoholism and may have a genetic weakness for alcohol irrespective of whether they ever drink or not ... they have the scars/curse].

We "die" for our own sins. Look at the rest of what God said through Ezekiel. What person ever, in their own power, chose to turn from wickedness? Romans 3 says "none"! We all stand condemned by our own evil desires [James said that].

Those DESIRES are the inheritance from Adam ... our choices make the sin and death our just punishment.
 
Ummm ... I think there is a distinction here.

Ezekiel 18:19-23 [NASB20]
19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not suffer [the punishment] for the father's guilt?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness [and] has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall certainly live. 20 "The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer [the punishment] for the father's guilt, nor will a father suffer [the punishment] for the son's guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21 "But if the wicked person turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 22 "All his offenses which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?

The "guilt" (curse) is passed from generation to generation [as the children of an alcoholic carry the scars of being raised under alcoholism and may have a genetic weakness for alcohol irrespective of whether they ever drink or not ... they have the scars/curse].

We "die" for our own sins. Look at the rest of what God said through Ezekiel. What person ever, in their own power, chose to turn from wickedness? Romans 3 says "none"! We all stand condemned by our own evil desires [James said that].

Those DESIRES are the inheritance from Adam ... our choices make the sin and death our just punishment.
That doesn't involve the legal guilt of one's parent, which is the issue in imputation.
 
No problem - just read the Biblical account.
I have, many times. It does not state what Adam "responded to 'temptation' (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do." That is what was posted.
Why were Adam, Eve, and the serpent all together AT THE ONE TREE IN THE GARDEN tha God had told them not to have anything to do with?
Great question.

Answer it.

Stop trying to put that on me when you were asked to prove Adam "responded to 'temptation' (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do."
Eve's reactions are recorded - i.e. they "lusted after THAT FRUIT", and satan came along with his enticement (God's LYING TO YOU - YOU WON'T DIE,
That is not what the Bible states. It makes no mention of any lust on her part. What is states is she, "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise."

  • Good for food
  • Delightful to the eyes
  • Desirable for knowledge

Those are factual observations about the tree, NOT a disclosure of her lusts.
WHY, You'll become like HIM!!!). And Eve "bought it" first, and Adam did afterward.

But stays when he sees that he's gaining ground.

Then why were he, and his wife there at the very tree that he wasn't supposed to have anything to do with. Get REAL.
Again, that is not what the scripture states and now the posts contradict one another AGAIN.

It cannot be claimed Adam "responded to temptation in exactly the same way we all do" by appealing to James 1's internal causes in one post and then say claimed he was tempted externally in another post. Neither can it be said he was tempted by satan exactly the same way as we are because Adam was not dead in sin or alive in Christ. One post appeal to Adam being tempted from within and then argue Eve's dialogue with satan is relevant (Adam is not Eve). The posts contradict themselves in multiple ways.
Nobody EVER "Proves" anything here, as you well know.
Nice red herring. Not only is that incorrect but, more to the point, the claim Adam "responded to temptation (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do" is not being proven. An ability to add piles of stuff to scripture is being demonstrated by the effort, but that is not proof the claim is correct.
BUT HEY!! James teaches that a person is drawn away by HIS OWN PERSONAL DESIRES (lust) and "Enticed".
No, James teaches the already-sinful redeemed person is drawn away by his own personal desires. James did not mention Adam or Eve at all and neither did he make any reference to the pre-disobedient NOT-sinful state.
Who do you suppose provides the "Enticement"??? DO the math. no difference between Adam, and you/me. the process is the same.
No, you do not get to shift the onus onto me until the claim made is proven, corrected, or acknowledged as incorrect (or unprovable).






You're supposed to be proving a sinless person is tempted in exactly the same way a sinful person; a person who did not know Christ is tempted the exact same way as the one in Christ. So far, the evidence shows the premise is built solely and entirely on inferences added to scripture that do not have any grounding in what is stated in the text. A lot of over-generalization is evident. The context of James 1's audience is being ignored, as well as that of pre-disobedient Adam. James was writing about sinful people who possessed sinful desires in a sinful world. Prior to Genesis 3:6-7 Adam was not sinful, had no sinful desires, and he did not live in a sinful world.


This is sort of important because if sinless people behave exactly as sinful people, or those not in Christ behave exactly like those in Christ, and/or God made them that way, then that has numerous implications that radically change Christianity.

Three options:

  • prove the claim,
  • amend it so it more accurately reflects what scripture does report,
  • or acknowledge the claim made cannot be proven and therefore might not be correct and true.

I will accept any of the three.
 
I don't see any "commanded" in the covenant of Ge 15:9-21 which ensured almost 600 years later.
I am not going to far afield of this op's topic, but the covenant with Abraham did not start in Genesis 15:9-21, and you should not limit the matter of commands to chapter 15. It started at Genesis 12:1 when God chose Abram, called him out of the land in which he was living and commanded him to do what God said. God tells Abram/Abraham He will establish His covenant with Abe multiple times, not just Gen. 15:18. Abraham was commanded to circumcise all the males a decade or more later in chapter 17. Most importantly, In Genesis 15 the vision Abram has shows God covenanted with Himself in a suzerain fealty ritual. It was not Abram whose life would be forfeit, but God's. The fiery torch and smoking oven are symbols for God, not Abram.
A covenant, most of the time being an obligation undertaken by a single person.
Incorrect.

A covenant with God is always "undertaken" by God, not a human. God initiates the covenant. He does so without the person involved even knowing the covenant has been initiated until after the covenant has been established. God chooses the participants. He calls them, and He chooses and calls them without ever asking any of them if they want to be chosen or called. He then commands them and He does so without asking if they want to be told what to do and always with the expectation of obedience; they are never given the option to say, "No." Only AFTER all of that has occurred does He ever provide an opportunity of choice to participate.

, as we see it used in God's covenant with the day and night, with David and with the Levites, basically equates to God's decrees in these matters,
I do not "see" it. I find several errors in it.
...to which could also be added the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant of Ge 15:9-21, the Phinehas covenant and the New Covenant of peace (Jer 31:31-34).
Here I can find agreement: a single covenant begun at creation that is added to as time progressed, and all of them speak to a single covenant, the one found in Christ - to whom all the law, psalms, and prophets bear witness. Note what I said earlier: the "covenant" is spoken of in singular form, not as multiple covenants.
That is not in agreement with the Biblical record.
The facts of scripture prove otherwise, and this is very easily and readily verified by a simple word search of scripture. You and everyone else on the planet will find the plural word "covenants" is used only four times in the entire Bible. There are 320 mentions of covenant, only four of them are plural, and only two of those have anything to do with a covenant with God. Two out of 320.

No, Eleanor, it is your view that does not comport well with the Biblical record. This is very clear with the next statement...
The covenant with day and night is not related to the covenant of the everlasting possession with Abraham in Ge 15:9:21.
Hmmm....

Jeremiah 33:12-26
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'There will again be in this place which is waste, without man or beast, and in all its cities, a habitation of shepherds who rest their flocks. ~'In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the lowland, in the cities of the Negev, in the land of Benjamin, in the environs of Jerusalem and in the cities of Judah, the flocks will again pass under the hands of the one who numbers them,' says the LORD. 'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ~'In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. ~'In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.' "For thus says the LORD, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'" The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, "Thus says the LORD, 'If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers. ~'As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'" And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, "Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, 'The two families which the LORD chose, He has rejected them'? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight. "Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.'"


There isn't a single word in that passage that does not tie back to the promises made Abraham. The only reason any of them were ever spoken to was because of the promises God made to Abraham.


The reason this is op-relevant, and the only reason I entertained the digression, is because the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ. Neither Abraham, nor any other sinful human, can accomplish what Only God accomplishes through Christ. We are incapable of saving ourselves from sin, and the covenant God instigated prior to creating creation whereby Christ would be the seed promised Abraham, making him the father of many nations, through his perfect sacrifice is beyond of ability. It is by grace we have been saved through faith and not of ourselves. The effects of sin are total when it comes to human ability to come to God in our own sinful flesh for salvation from that sin.

If you'd like to discuss the matter of covenant more then start a thread on the topic and let me know it's up (PM me) and I'll consider discussing it there.
 
I am just pulling this one section out of your post to address. The rest I agree with and it clarifies other aspects of TD that I was not specifically addressing, but are good to have clarified. And put another angle of it.

I agree that my statement may have muddied the waters a bit as it was not clear. Sometimes I rush ahead of my thoughts and end up leaving things out. I was merely trying to stress the complete alienation of mankind as a species, from God. Not just because we sin but because we are an alien race. It is often looked at as God only being concerned with the personal sins of each person when it comes to the atonement. But that is not the whole story. It goes back to what we became by virtue of being in our federal head, Adam. And indeed I did make that statement as though being totally depraved was the same thing as being alienated. And I do not think that it is.
Hey, no blood, no foul. The exchange is good because it demonstrates how these discussions should go: collaboratively and not defensively and not adversarially. We all benefit from this kind of process. You refine your future posts to be more specified, more accurate, less vulnerable to criticism, and hopefully more persuasive. The rest of us benefit similarly from the reflection having our own views tested, examined, affirmed, corrected, etc., resulting in our own thinking being honed.
Sometimes I rush ahead of my thoughts and end up leaving things out....
I still love you ;).

Took me a long time to get TD correct. I came from the Arm camp and thought all Cals fools who falsely taught an utterly robot theology. Now I know better 😁.

Humans are depraved, and when it comes to any inherent ability to come to God for salvation from the sin that kills and enslaves us, we are depraved totally by that sin.
 
It has been said that some Reformed or Calvinist teach that people can't do anything good. I am not going to rule out that there are some who are not well versed in the doctrines that they believe have said such a thing and meant it literally. More likely though it is a misinterpretation on the part of the hearer/reader as to what is being said, or a failure on the part of the author/speaker to elaborate.

The theology of total depravity or radical depravity is based in large part on Romans 3: 9-18 which is quoting various parts of the OT. It is based also on the imputed sin of Adam to all his progeny. So the premise of the doctrine is that all mankind through Adam became sinners by nature. That is, we sin because sinners is what we are. Therefore as a creation, a species, our nature is sinful as a result of the fall.

And this explains the passages given and Is 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

So the doctrine of total depravity is not teaching that humans never do or cannot do good things. It means that even their good deeds and thoughts are tainted by our fallen nature, and therefore they contain elements in our hearts that bear on our intentions. They are not truly and completely a submitting to God.They aren't in honor and worship of God but are centered on ourselves. And they can never make us perfectly righteous which is the righteousness that our Creator demands as having made us in His image and likeness.
When the Dutch Reformed church taught me in Bible class, they posed it as an inability on the part of man to approach God, both for salvation in particular, and also generally. Man could never start a relationship with God; such a relationship was only possible if God initiated it.

-Jarrod
 
When the Dutch Reformed church taught me in Bible class, they posed it as an inability on the part of man to approach God, both for salvation in particular, and also generally. Man could never start a relationship with God; such a relationship was only possible if God initiated it.

-Jarrod
I would agree with that but it is not the whole story in that it doesn't explain why that is. Or explain the biblical doctrine that arrives at TD.

But it is very well said. I made reference to the content of it in one of my posts here, regarding a free will choice. Salvation being dependant on the free will choice of each individual would be a sinner inviting themselves into a covenant with God. A sinner approaching God, for even his choice is tainted with the sin of a sinner. (in Adam and his own sins) It would be akin to sinful man touching what is holy, or any but the Mosaic high priest, who himself undergoes extensive cleansing rites, entering into the holy of holies. Death would have been instant in that case as it was with offering strange fire, and reaching up to touch the ark of the covenant for whatever reason.
 
I am not going to far afield of this op's topic, but the covenant with Abraham did not start in Genesis 15:9-21, and you should not limit the matter of commands to chapter 15. It started at Genesis 12:1 when God chose Abram, called him out of the land in which he was living and commanded him to do what God said.
Your use of "covenant" is not the Biblical use of "covenant."

So we won't be agreeing on this, for I use "covenant" only as and where Scripture uses it.
 
When the Dutch Reformed church taught me in Bible class, they posed it as an inability on the part of man to approach God, both for salvation in particular, and also generally. Man could never start a relationship with God; such a relationship was only possible if God initiated it.

-Jarrod
Can I amend that to say, "Man could never [correctly] start a relationship with God"? The entire history of humanity is filled with human effort to reach God in the flesh. All of it misguided.

And I am curious, aside from replacing God, what other reason would there be for approaching God beside salvation from sin?
 
Can I amend that to say, "Man could never [correctly] start a relationship with God"? The entire history of humanity is filled with human effort to reach God in the flesh. All of it misguided.

And I am curious, aside from replacing God, what other reason would there be for approaching God beside salvation from sin?
Fellowship.
 
Hey, no blood, no foul. The exchange is good because it demonstrates how these discussions should go: collaboratively and not defensively and not adversarially. We all benefit from this kind of process. You refine your future posts to be more specified, more accurate, less vulnerable to criticism, and hopefully more persuasive. The rest of us benefit similarly from the reflection having our own views tested, examined, affirmed, corrected, etc., resulting in our own thinking being honed.
I have found that to be very true, very helpful. Training. "Set a guard over my mouth, watch over the door of my lips. Let a righteous man strike me and let me not refuse it? (from Psalm 141) (And I am not saying you struck me. :)) I did however have that first initial but fleeting reaction of rushing to defend myself. But I didn't have time to respond to the whole post right then. When I came back and read what I said and what you said---well I laughed. I had done exactly what you said I had done with my wording, what was there and what wasn't there. And I know better! And I cautioned myself to be more careful. And possibly not answer posts that need a lot of careful thought and checking and mental and time involvement when I am already exhausted from the mental strain, and the sitting, and the thinking.
Took me a long time to get TD correct. I came from the Arm camp and thought all Cals fools who falsely taught an utterly robot theology. Now I know better 😁.

Humans are depraved, and when it comes to any inherent ability to come to God for salvation from the sin that kills and enslaves us, we are depraved totally by that sin.
I too came from the A'ist camp and never heard of the doctrines in Calvinism. But I was hungry and thirsty, longing to attend a church where who God is was the topic. So when the first book on Calvinism was handed to me, and I began to read, the very first sentence and everything following were about who God is. And who we are in relationship to Him. "This is it. This is where I will learn about what I am longing to learn and hear." was my reaction. So began the journey that did not just speak about grace and the atonement in terms of its benefit to us and our daily lives, but looked into grace, and the atonement, justification, the holiness of God, His sovereignty, the deity of Christ etc. etc. etc. Everything. I did understand total depravity, and saw it clearly in the Bible, but having gained the foundation, I can now refine and hone it more clearly, with a greater understanding (and am still doing so) and defend it with the whole counsel of God in play.

Depraved totally, yes, even by virtue of the type of creature we are, a creature that sins---the only such creature in all of creation ( in our created world). And we live in accordance with who we are, bound in chains, slaves to sin. There is no way we can free ourselves, not even to choose Christ, for that would be a sinner, a totally depraved being daring to touch what is holy. Christ did the work of breaking those chains and defeating sin and death for us, and the Holy Spirit regenerates those whom the Father has given Him, and applies that work of Jesus to them.

I smile to think how quickly and powerfully and silently, that is done, that snatching out of one kingdom, the kingdom of darkness and brought into a different kingdom. The kingdom of the Son of His love. Chains broken, prison gate opened. Audios darkness!
 
And I am curious, aside from replacing God, what other reason would there be for approaching God beside salvation from sin?
There are probably many, but the first one that jumped to mind was education. On the one hand, Who better to learn from? On the other hand, is that Gnosticism? 😅
 
And I am curious, aside from replacing God, what other reason would there be for approaching God beside salvation from sin?
It has not rained, or your child is sick, or your family fortune is riding on this ship carrying trade goods to a foreign port arriving safely. God … the great Slot Machine. ;)
 
I have, many times. It does not state what Adam "responded to 'temptation' (James 1) in exactly the same way we all do." That is what was posted.
Yup that's what I said, and that's what I meant.
Great question. Answer it.
No problem!!! It's normal human nature to DESIRE what's been forbidden - the existence of a LAW creates the human desire to break it.
It makes no mention of any lust on her part. What is states is she, "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise."
Chuckle!! "Lust" (personal desire) defined perfectly. Eve was LUSTING about what had been forbidden - plain as day!!
You're supposed to be proving a sinless person is tempted in exactly the same way a sinful person
And to MY SATISFACTION, I have.
Three options:
Nope FOUR options. You forgot: "decide that the whole thing is a lost cause because of conflicting Theological fixations", and walk away. I'm done here.
 
There are probably many,
List three.
....but the first one that jumped to mind was education. On the one hand, Who better to learn from?
Sinners coming to God on their own for education in their flesh? Okay; I'm intrigued. Provide the scriptural support for that position and make that case.
On the other hand, is that Gnosticism? 😅
;) Only if deemed the means to enlightenment or salvation. God's a big fan of knowledge, understanding, wisdom and education. He assumes the role and calls Himself, "teacher" on more than one occasion.

Exodus 4:12
Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.

Isaiah 30:20
Although the Lord has given you bread of privation and water of oppression, He, your Teacher will no longer hide Himself, but your eyes will behold your Teacher.

Matthew 23:8
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.


But knowledge is not the cause of salvation from sin, nor the means by which God is reached. That is Gnostic.
 
Back
Top