Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

13

This is a good place to start: We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. -- Isaiah 64:6, ESV Btw, the Hebrew for "polluted garment" is more literally "menstrual rag". But I think there is a lot of misunderstanding ...


9

While I agree with warren's answer, I do believe like Ray points out that this is mostly about the original sin, transmitted from Adam to all of his offspring. Total depravity goes beyond that, as it states that we are not only sinners, but that we are not even righteous enough to accept Christ on our own. On the fact that all have sinned, we can refer to ...


6

The doctrine that says that we are all born fundamentally sinful is called total depravity. It is held by the vast majority of protestants - Lutheran and Methodist alike. This is one area of agreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Although not quite teaching that we are "basically good", one step closer to that is limited depravity. It is the belief ...


5

When I first read your question my immediate thought was it is not what is said here that shows the conflict with Calvinism but what is 'not said'. Interestingly enough I was trying to find proof of this impression and found the very same observation made my a modern Remonstrant with respect to the seventh article of the Methodist church. Original sin ...


5

D'Oh! @SanJacinto answered the question perfectly by reminding me of Pelagianism. Pelagiansim is the heresy that posits: There is no original sin ergo Man is, in theory, if not in practice, capable of perfection, if he were to so choose. but In practice never does.


4

Romans 9:10 "as it is written, THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;" (a quote from the Psalms) and Psalm 51, especially verse 5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." are generally the first references for the doctrine. God's reason for destroying the world with water in Genesis via the flood was that ...


4

In short: No Do not trust your conscience. Regarding this verse above, our hearts and our consciences are the same thing, biblically speaking. They are part of our "soul" (in biblical terms). (See this question for distinction between the soul and the spirit.) To show that these are the same, I'll go back to the original Greek, so that we can ...


4

I think you've got a misunderstanding of the concept of "Total Depravity" and of the definition of the word "good" from a Christian perspective. Total Depravity does not mean that we are totally evil. It doesn't mean that we have no good within us whatsoever. Everybody on earth has some good in them, so it would be utter foolishness to interpret the ...


4

It's probably important to emphasize here that Calvin, as far as I know (and I think we are in agreement on this point), did not believe "Original Sin" to have been completely absolved by the birth of Christ. Indeed it was also in Romans(9:18-23) that one of the early Calvinists' favorite quotes appears: Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have ...


3

The phrase " sin nature " is not used in the bible I use, KJV. However, there are verses that imply such. Psalms 51;5 Behold,I was shapen in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalms 58;3 The wicked are estranged from the womb:they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Ephesians 2;3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in ...


3

Because John Wesley is often called Arminian, we sometimes think he and the Methodists deny that the guilt of Adams sin was imputed against mankind, but this is not the case at all. Both Calvinists and Methodists adhere to the doctrine of original sin which rests on Adams guilt being imputed against men, so that before we are born we are guilty of sin.  ...


3

The closest thing I know of that automatically rejects total depravity is the doctrine of justification according to the Catholic Church. Total depravity resigns the entire human nature unto the bondage of sin and therefore no part of the will remains which can obtain righteousness, even in conjunction with God’s grace, unless first the soul becomes totally ...


3

One thing to consider is that the doctrine of unconditional election goes hand-in-hand (logically) with the doctrine of total depravity. To establish this relationship, there are several passage to consider. The idea being that through sin, man is naturally "dead," and so predisposed against choosing the good news of God's salvation such that, left to ...


3

That linked Wikipedia article is incorrect in it's description of free will. Both of the main views (Calvinism and Arminianism) assert a free will of sorts - man is not as bad as he could possibly be and we recognise that non-Christians can make good and bad decisions. Furthermore, both sides agree that an unregenerate sinner cannot do anything to please God ...


3

I can't speak much to the Lutheran or Calvinist view, but I can give my own perspective (Wesleyan Arminian): In the Arminian understanding, human beings were created by God as part of God's good creation, but we were given free will which enabled us to turn away from God's will. In order to bring us back, God provided the means of grace that enables us to ...


2

Yes The word conscience comes from the Latin conscire, a compound of con (with) and scire (to know), meaning “to know together with,” “joint knowledge with another.” Your conscience is your ability to know right and wrong in connection with the laws of God that have been written upon your heart at your new birth of the Holy Spirit. Heb. 8:10-11 Your ...


2

A. "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ" or B. "X is sinful" , "no one with sin can accept Christ" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ" Neither (A) nor (B) are acceptable terminal points in Calvinistic theology. These are not doctrines that are taught, but rather ones that you ...


2

You have it right: "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ without the additional work of the Holy Spirit" --> is the basic belief held by Calvinism. One of the best explanations of the doctrine of original sin is by Jonathan Edwards, entitled ‘without surprise’, ‘The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin ...


2

You just have to look at the "L" for your answer. They believe in Total Depravity and Limited Atonement. The "opposite" would be Limited Depravity and Total Atonement, yes? Is that not in effect what the opponents of Calvin teach?


2

Short answer: Self-Esteem Movement Longer Answer: To find the opposite of Total Depravity, we would have to find a doctrine that presents man as ultimately and only ever good and worthy in his identity. By definition, I don't think you would ever find this extreme within the Christian church, as any doctrine that would present man as only ever good would ...


1

Where in the Bible does it say we have a sin nature? The Bible does not say that we have a sin nature in those explicit words. Neither do we find "trinity," or "rapture" in Scripture, but the concepts are still present under different wording. In answer to your question, I suggest thoughtful reading of Romans 7 is in order, especially verses 14 and ...


1

The eastern Othordox view of original sin is just like the Roman Catholic view. Calvinism is very different. They key difference between the two views is that for Calvin, Luther and the reformers, an infinite transaction occurs in a single moment when a sinner believes in Christ. At this moment all guilt for sin is removed for all past, present and ...


1

The opposite of total depravity as it is being taught by most theologians is simply total ability. It is the "in other words" part of your question that implies something that opponents of total depravity are not saying. When someone says that they do not believe in man's total depravity they are not saying that man is capable of saving themselves. Those ...


1

I think your problem comes in your understanding of the statement, "X is sinful". In context, when a Calvinist says "Fred Jones is sinful", he does not simply mean, "Fred Jones has committed many sins". What he means is more like, "Fred Jones mind is totally controlled by sin." It's like if I said, "X is wet -> X will never be dry without radical ...


1

I have actually asked myself this question before. I have two answers. One, we can't assume everything in a  parable is to be taken literally. In this case the concern he has is not real but is there to fill in the picture of the parable's main point. The second, which I prefer as seeming more natural, is this.  Total depravity does not mean men are ...


1

I speak from a Lutheran perspective. In our confession we say this - AC II.1. 1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal ...


1

Seeing as I used to go to a Lutheran seminary but now find myself at a Presbyterian church, I hope I can help! Calvinists do in fact prefer the term total depravity, however it really only dIfferentiates from Lutheran concepts of original sin in name. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and so is very influenced by his understanding of original sin that ...


1

Yeah, our consciences are trustworthy. Our conscience will always tell us the truth. It is our passions which cloud our ability to follow our conscience. Original sin is that which clouds our conscience, makes us follow our passions (like answering questions on StackExchange when we should be working). I asked my religious ed. class (7th and 8th graders) ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible