Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Right now, I essentially have a few propositions in my mind regarding Total Depravity, but they are not systematized. So, I am going to list what I already have established and questions stemming from them. (Feel free to correct whatever I already think is established, for I could very well be wrong.)
Already established:
(1) Man is entirely unable to save himself, and is entirely averse to conversion without God's help.
(2) Man can still achieve some moral good without being regenerated, although this good necessarily stems from God, Who is the fountain of all things good.
(3) From (2), therefore, man would choose the maximum amount of evil at all times without God's grace, yet this is not the state of men denoted by Total Depravity. That is, if God were to provide no grace (and I don't mean grace in the salvific sense; I am a high Calvinist) at all to assist a natural man's moral faculties, then that natural man would choose the maximum amount of evil; yet even with this grace, the natural man can be regarded as totally depraved.
(4) What Total Depravity denotes, then, is that all of men's faculties are averse to putting faith in Christ and submitting oneself to His lordship; it is not purely tied to man's moral goodness. This is patently obvious given the fact that some (many) nonbelievers are not raving, murderous demons. In fact, the augmented moral state of many nonbelievers can help conceal their complete spiritual enmity against Christ.
(5) To paraphrase Joel Beeke and restate (2) above, Total Depravity implies not that all natural men are wholly evil in all their decisions, but that none of their decisions are wholly good. This seems to be the case because "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). To add on to this, Jonathan Edwards contends that all actions that are perfect, i.e., completely virtuous, are ones that seek to display God's glory. And all actions that do not ultimately seek the display of God's glory are defective in varying degrees.
And now, my questions stemming therefrom:
(I) When I make a moral decision, and especially when I choose an option that seems to honor God's law and avoid sin entirely -- i.e., when I am amidst tribulation and I choose not to sin -- I very rarely have "I want to display God's glory" in my mind. Although Jonathan Edwards makes for a very convenient bifurcation between what counts as sin and what doesn't, with the entire distinction boiling down to whether God's glory is sought or not, is his distinction accurate? Perhaps I need to understand more ways in which God is glorified: for instance, if I have in mind, "I want to keep God's law," or, "I do not want to pierce Christ," or, "I do not want to grieve the Holy Spirit," is it possible to logically transform any of those motives into a motive to glorify God?
(II) If Total Depravity pertains only to spiritual aversion to Jehovah and not necessarily to a specific amount of moral depravity -- e.g., some unbelievers are kind and honest -- then why can believers, myself included, always point to the significant moral change that occurs post-regeneration? Drunkards, homosexuals, sex addicts, idolaters, etc. can all talk about the supreme moral change God has wrought in their lives when they converted. Yet Total Depravity refers mostly to a spiritual hardness of heart. So how is Total Depravity related to the moral state of man, keeping in mind that many unbelievers are "nice people," at least compared to many believers? I have a feeling that this question is answered by the mere fact that although Total Depravity refers to a total spiritual and not moral depravity, our spiritual faculties affects our moral faculties, such that any improvement in the former (e.g., those which occur by regeneration and sanctification) necessarily causes a betterment in the latter. But I would appreciate more input, or perhaps confirmation, regarding this point.
(III) This is somewhat tied to (I). What does it mean to do everything in faith (per Romans 14:5)? I do not necessarily have God in my mind when I, for instance, choose to get pepperoni pizza rather than cheese pizza. Does that make such an action sin? Assuming it does not, why not?
(IV) Is there any way to discuss Total Depravity with unbelievers as some segue to give evidence for or explain the doctrines of Christianity? Unbelievers are quick to point out an evidential argument that they believe is against Christianity, viz. that they know many moral non-Christians; therefore Christ is not necessary to be moral; therefore Christianity is false. Is there a converse to this? For example, if I were to present the Gospel, and if I tried to explain that natural men are trapped in sin and cannot save themselves to any degree, is there any way I could say, "Look at person X, etc.; this evidences Total Depravity" (in such a way that is consistent with the ninth commandment, upholding my neighbor's good name )?
Already established:
(1) Man is entirely unable to save himself, and is entirely averse to conversion without God's help.
(2) Man can still achieve some moral good without being regenerated, although this good necessarily stems from God, Who is the fountain of all things good.
(3) From (2), therefore, man would choose the maximum amount of evil at all times without God's grace, yet this is not the state of men denoted by Total Depravity. That is, if God were to provide no grace (and I don't mean grace in the salvific sense; I am a high Calvinist) at all to assist a natural man's moral faculties, then that natural man would choose the maximum amount of evil; yet even with this grace, the natural man can be regarded as totally depraved.
(4) What Total Depravity denotes, then, is that all of men's faculties are averse to putting faith in Christ and submitting oneself to His lordship; it is not purely tied to man's moral goodness. This is patently obvious given the fact that some (many) nonbelievers are not raving, murderous demons. In fact, the augmented moral state of many nonbelievers can help conceal their complete spiritual enmity against Christ.
(5) To paraphrase Joel Beeke and restate (2) above, Total Depravity implies not that all natural men are wholly evil in all their decisions, but that none of their decisions are wholly good. This seems to be the case because "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). To add on to this, Jonathan Edwards contends that all actions that are perfect, i.e., completely virtuous, are ones that seek to display God's glory. And all actions that do not ultimately seek the display of God's glory are defective in varying degrees.
And now, my questions stemming therefrom:
(I) When I make a moral decision, and especially when I choose an option that seems to honor God's law and avoid sin entirely -- i.e., when I am amidst tribulation and I choose not to sin -- I very rarely have "I want to display God's glory" in my mind. Although Jonathan Edwards makes for a very convenient bifurcation between what counts as sin and what doesn't, with the entire distinction boiling down to whether God's glory is sought or not, is his distinction accurate? Perhaps I need to understand more ways in which God is glorified: for instance, if I have in mind, "I want to keep God's law," or, "I do not want to pierce Christ," or, "I do not want to grieve the Holy Spirit," is it possible to logically transform any of those motives into a motive to glorify God?
(II) If Total Depravity pertains only to spiritual aversion to Jehovah and not necessarily to a specific amount of moral depravity -- e.g., some unbelievers are kind and honest -- then why can believers, myself included, always point to the significant moral change that occurs post-regeneration? Drunkards, homosexuals, sex addicts, idolaters, etc. can all talk about the supreme moral change God has wrought in their lives when they converted. Yet Total Depravity refers mostly to a spiritual hardness of heart. So how is Total Depravity related to the moral state of man, keeping in mind that many unbelievers are "nice people," at least compared to many believers? I have a feeling that this question is answered by the mere fact that although Total Depravity refers to a total spiritual and not moral depravity, our spiritual faculties affects our moral faculties, such that any improvement in the former (e.g., those which occur by regeneration and sanctification) necessarily causes a betterment in the latter. But I would appreciate more input, or perhaps confirmation, regarding this point.
(III) This is somewhat tied to (I). What does it mean to do everything in faith (per Romans 14:5)? I do not necessarily have God in my mind when I, for instance, choose to get pepperoni pizza rather than cheese pizza. Does that make such an action sin? Assuming it does not, why not?
(IV) Is there any way to discuss Total Depravity with unbelievers as some segue to give evidence for or explain the doctrines of Christianity? Unbelievers are quick to point out an evidential argument that they believe is against Christianity, viz. that they know many moral non-Christians; therefore Christ is not necessary to be moral; therefore Christianity is false. Is there a converse to this? For example, if I were to present the Gospel, and if I tried to explain that natural men are trapped in sin and cannot save themselves to any degree, is there any way I could say, "Look at person X, etc.; this evidences Total Depravity" (in such a way that is consistent with the ninth commandment, upholding my neighbor's good name )?