9

The doctrine you are addressing is called Total Depravity. This question will actually say much more about it: What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity? Various denominations have slightly different nuances to the idea, but typically the following verses are first up: Romans 3:10-11: "There is none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; ...


8

This answer summarizes portions of the argument against total depravity presented by Alexander J. Renault in his book entitled "Reconsidering TULIP". Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that sin has weakened human beings so that we are unable to come to God apart from His grace in our lives. But we diverge on whether this is a special grace given only to an ...


7

Reformed catechisms make it clear that all of Adam's (ordinary) descendants are conceived and born spiritually dead. First, a translation of Q&A 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism: Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from? A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. This fall has so poisoned our nature that we ...


7

There are a number of verses that suggest that all people are sinners, here are a handful: (all quotes are from the NRSV) Romans 3:23 "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" 1 John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Ecclesiastes 7:20 "Surely there is no one on earth so ...


6

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 ...


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 ...


6

Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Before answering positively, allow me to object to the scripture you cited as an argument to the contrary. The passage 1 Corinthians 10:13, cannot be interpreted to mean that God only commands men that which they ...


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.


5

Total depravity defined The Canons of Dort define total depravity pretty well in section 3: All people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their ...


5

Tullian Tchvidijian's vocabulary, if not his theology, is definitely not in line with the typical understanding of total depravity. We'll begin by explaining that, and then comparing Tchvidjian's teaching. Total Depravity Robert Reymond's definition of total depravity is typical: Both because of original sin and their own acts of sin, all mankind, ...


5

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with this subject in §385–412. A couple sections in particular reveal several significant contrasts between Catholic and Reformed theology: §405: Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original ...


4

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 ...


4

Note that in the Edwards quote you gave: So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin ( Vol. 3) , Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280) You left off the end of the sentence: as appears by Romans 8:8, which says: Those who are in 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 ...


4

Perhaps another way to look at this issue is to focus on what human nature is, and see what sin changed. Man was created in the "image of God," which certainly included original righteousness (or, as Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof puts it, "true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness"), which was lost in the Fall. Berkhof goes on to contrast this ...


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

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

Arminian and Calvinist compared The Arminian and Calvinist views on Total Depravity start out with similar points. The theory of Total Depravity forms the 'T' in the Calvinist five summary points TULIP, and the T in the Arminian five summary points of FACTS. It is one area where there is some crossover within the two theories. Both Calvinists and ...


3

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 ...


3

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 ...


3

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 ...


3

I think these paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith explain the conundrum sufficiently. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. By this sin ...


2

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 ...


2

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 ...


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 ...


2

There are three points I would like to bring to your attention. Only God is good: Matthew 19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. There are only two sides: Matthew 12:30: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not ...


2

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 15-25. ...


2

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 ...


2

The simple answer is that God does things outside of our human comprehension. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, at the same time. He was not split. He was not 50% God and 50% man. Because of that, he was not imparted original sin. Without original sin, Jesus could not be totally depraved. How was he not imparted original sin? Like I said, it's outside of our ...


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