Implication of Total Depravity

[Toasty]

Is it an implication of the total depravity of man that man is prone to come up with a false theology or religion and that doing natural theology is a waste of time?

 

[KeithW]

I would say instead that it is the nature of sin that leads to man coming up with false theology and false religion. Consider that sin is not simply the breaking of the law, but that the very nature of sin opposes absolutely everything about God and what He has said.

God said He made the heaven and earth? The sin nature opposes that.
God said He made us male or female? The sin nature opposes that.
God made it so 2+2=4? The sin nature opposes that this was God's doing.

Then total depravity adds the idea that the Bible teaches all of mankind is born into this condition. Then sanctification is a lifelong process where no man is ever completely freed from the sin nature in this life.

 

[Gforce9]

Henry,
I don't think it would be a waste of time, however, as with anything filtered through our fallen minds, the corrective of Scripture and accepted Christian doctrine is paramount......

 

[MW]

Is it an implication of the total depravity of man that man is prone to come up with a false theology or religion and that doing natural theology is a waste of time?

It depends on whether the term "natural" assumes "nature" is in a normal state. If nature is understood to be fallen then man is more than prone to come up with a false theology; his theology will be materially false even when it is formally true. The reason is that man is thinking about God in alienation from Him. Whatever fallen man sets up in his mind is not the living God but an idol. The true God is a God of revelation and true man is a man who receives and submits to the revelation of God. It is just at this point that the value of natural theology appears in that it shows the way natural man holds the truth in unrighteousness. As long as the antithesis is maintained natural theology contains value. As soon as natural theology is made the basis of common ground or autonomous reason the salt has lost its savour.

 

[Toasty]

Is it an implication of the total depravity of man that man is prone to come up with a false theology or religion and that doing natural theology is a waste of time?

It depends on whether the term "natural" assumes "nature" is in a normal state. If nature is understood to be fallen then man is more than prone to come up with a false theology; his theology will be materially false even when it is formally true. The reason is that man is thinking about God in alienation from Him. Whatever fallen man sets up in his mind is not the living God but an idol. The true God is a God of revelation and true man is a man who receives and submits to the revelation of God. It is just at this point that the value of natural theology appears in that it shows the way natural man holds the truth in unrighteousness. As long as the antithesis is maintained natural theology contains value. As soon as natural theology is made the basis of common ground or autonomous reason the salt has lost its savour.

I was thinking of nature in a normal state and understood to be fallen.

When Paul was preaching on Mars Hill, he quoted some Greek poets. I've heard Scott Oliphint say that what those Greek poets said is true only if it applies to the true God. The Apostle Paul took those quotes applied them to the true God. Was it Paul's point that those Greeks were living off borrowed capital?

 

[MW]

Was it Paul's point that those Greeks were living off borrowed capital?

I think we can draw that point from the narrative as a whole, but I cannot see how the apostle would have been explicitly making such a point. This passage is often referred to as the model apologetic in finding common ground with unbelievers; but if read carefully we will see that the apostle was in fact diminishing what they thought they knew, and offers negative critique of this idea of an unknown God. They were still reflecting the times of ignorance when God left men to "feel" their way to Him. Their feelings led them to worship all kinds of things in His place, and God let them go on in their folly. But now there is a full revelation of God and His will in Christ and He commands all men everywhere to repent. Far from pointing to common ground the apostle demonstrates that there is nothing common between Christ and idols, and God's exaltation of Christ demands a whole new way of thinking and living.

 

[ZackF]

Was it Paul's point that those Greeks were living off borrowed capital?

Every unbeliever is living off, more to the point engaging in various degrees of rebellion from, borrowed capital or what Schaeffer would call "True Truth." While "common ground" can be a useful place holder in conversations, the unbeliever is forced to confront his inconsistencies. The "ground" the unbeliever strolls on is Christian.

 

[Toasty]

Was it Paul's point that those Greeks were living off borrowed capital?

I think we can draw that point from the narrative as a whole, but I cannot see how the apostle would have been explicitly making such a point. This passage is often referred to as the model apologetic in finding common ground with unbelievers; but if read carefully we will see that the apostle was in fact diminishing what they thought they knew, and offers negative critique of this idea of an unknown God. They were still reflecting the times of ignorance when God left men to "feel" their way to Him. Their feelings led them to worship all kinds of things in His place, and God let them go on in their folly. But now there is a full revelation of God and His will in Christ and He commands all men everywhere to repent. Far from pointing to common ground the apostle demonstrates that there is nothing common between Christ and idols, and God's exaltation of Christ demands a whole new way of thinking and living.

They had false beliefs about God so Paul told them what God was like. I agree. He wasn't trying to establish common ground.