Have a look at this FASCINATING video from the Royal Society of the Arts.
Link to share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
What if we aren’t totally sinful? Granted, we all have incurable sinful tendencies, and we need a Savior, but what if the Lord also implanted countering tendencies like empathy?
For those of you looking for a definition of Total Depravity, see the Wikipedia article on the same topic.
I’ve been a committed follower of Christ for some time now, and have never, in my gut, totally bought into the notion that we are “totally depraved.” I’ve always gotten chills when we sing “saved a wretch like me.” Does the creator create wretches?
Never liked saying over and over every Sunday that “I am in bondage to sin and cannot free myself.” Felt like reinforcing a curse. I think I can say “yes and no” to that on different levels, but it’s just not that simple.
I would say that we are more complex than that.
We are beautiful and broken.
We are noble and sometimes pathetic.
What if original sin is true. AND original blessing…
Does it have to be all or nothing?
I’m Lutheran in my tendencies, and Lutherans have always been good at holding things in tension. Already and not yet. Simul iustus et peccator, etc. That works for me.
This is a key issue in evangelization–if we can’t agree, basically, about the human condition, with those we are trying to reach, we have no table on which to serve the “dinner” of the Gospel.
I would love to hear your thoughts. The conservative TULIP Calvinists among us are going to go nuts.
Isn’t what the Bible teaches much richer than “total depravity?”
Have at it. But play nice.🙂
94 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 12, 2010 at 8:00 am
Russell Lee
It would be helpful if you defined what you mean by total depravity.
July 13, 2010 at 6:30 am
David Housholder
Done–link put into the essay.
July 12, 2010 at 8:07 am
Jay Egenes
Great Question!
We are created in the image of God. The Bible says that, in Genesis.
So let’s say that sin (original or my own) messes up that image–puts some dents in it or scratches it up or covers some of it.
Is it still there?
If the image of God is still there, how could we be “totally depraved”?
Grace and peace,
Jay Egenes
July 12, 2010 at 8:17 am
Justin @ BeDeviant
Genesis frames my whole notion of this debate.
When I read Scripture, I see that before sin enters the picture, we are crafted in God’s Image. That is the truest part about us. It’s our fundamental identity given to us by God. Unchangeable.
Are we riddled with sin? Yes. But that’s not what’s at the “bottom of the barrel,” so to speak. At the end of the day, God’s Image in us reigns supreme. Nothing else.
Not sin.
Not depravity.
Not TULIP.
Imago Dei.
Last time I checked, the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible, not John Calvin!
Good question.
July 13, 2010 at 12:17 am
Stephen
So why did we need to be saved if God’s image reigns supreme in us? Does that mean God needs to be saved?
July 13, 2010 at 11:54 am
Luke Allison
Justin,
“Are we riddled with sin? Yes. But that’s not what’s at the “bottom of the barrel,” so to speak. At the end of the day, God’s Image in us reigns supreme. Nothing else.”
And no one really has much of a clue what that actually means. Do we build an entire soteriology around one concept that is barely expounded upon in Scripture? Obviously the implications of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) are vast, but so are the implications of being cursed (Genesis 3:16-19), and banished from Eden (Genesis 3:20-24).
Do you see a positive human trajectory from that point forward? No sooner to do you have willful rebellion and self-idolatry than you have the first murderer (Cain) followed by the first mass murderer (Lamech), followed by the Lord seeing that every thought of humanity was turned toward evil. Then He killed almost every single one of them. Image bearers. Men, women, and children.
We need to be careful how we approach this topic, because it’s far too easy to say “I can’t get past the fact that God made us in His image” and then jump to “Therefore He must not care about sin all that much.” I’ve been hearing people do it for years. I’m not saying you said this, but the jump is easy.
God is love, but He’s also just, self-sufficient, wise, holy, perfect, kind, slow to anger, quick to anger, and absolutely sovereign. Are any of us those things in their purest, most perfect forms?
All the Reformers did was try to apply concrete concepts to the collective teaching of Scripture. I for one am grateful for them, since we would be probably part of the Universal Catholic Church if it weren’t for their fire and passion.
July 12, 2010 at 8:55 am
David Churness
I believe that the Augsburg Confession restricts “the bondage of the Will” to salvation only. We do have “civil righteousness”, that is we are fallen ceatures but we are not devils. By creation we have something of the Image of God. Concerning redemption without Jesus and the Holy Spirit we are totally lost.
·
July 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm
David Housholder
I really like the Augsburg Confession. But is God impressed by it?
July 12, 2010 at 9:00 am
Ted
I think the Calvinism was concerned about the whole issue of works, that there be nothing theologically speaking, that people can do to earn favor, grace, forgiveness or merit of any kind from God by what they did, said, thought, or were, and total depravity was a theological hedge they created to ensure that principle. It is an issue churches from a Weslyan/Arminian tradition have long had with Calvinist church traditions.
July 13, 2010 at 6:12 pm
David Housholder
Did they over-hedge to preserve a truth that was so solid it didn’t need defending?
July 12, 2010 at 10:58 am
Jay Egenes
One of the episodes of Community last week dealt with this question in the context of a college debate. The question was are people basically good or basically evil. Evil won, but only pulled it out at the end because Jeff was “horny.” Pretty funny stuff.
We actually talked about this Sunday in worship–in the context of what it means to love Jesus and what it means to love your neighbor. I asked for shows of hands as to who thought we were basically good, basically bad, or thought it was mixed. Mixed won. I was surprised how many people in a Lutheran church thought people were basically good. Evidently they never read “Bondage of the Will.”
July 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm
David Housholder
Fascinating staw poll, Jay!
July 12, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Ted Hill
David, I resonate with your comment that ‘never in my gut, totally bought into the notion …’ In my mind I fear slowly letting the ‘power of positive thinking and feeling’ replace the stark and powerful reality of what Christ has won for us on the cross. In that fear I have never let the Holy Spirit take me deeper into the beauty of Imago Dei – which is why Christ was so willing to lay down His life and spill that precious blood! I want to be what I am created and redeemed to be!
July 12, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Kathy McDougall
I am a layman so I apologize if this is a silly question but wasn’t the original sin a choice and not a compulsion? Eve, and later Adam, made a choice to disobey God. To give into temptation. Doesn’t that mean that the COULD have chosen not to sin?
July 12, 2010 at 4:43 pm
David Housholder
Kathy, that’s actually a HUGE theological question. So much for “I’m only a….” 🙂
July 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Lyle Snyder
Kathy:
That is a very good question. For purposes of my answer, I will not delve into differing views of scripture (e.g., the question of biblical inerrancy). Instead, I will answer it from a historical perspective.
Way back in the early 400’s, there was actually a very large theological debate upon this same issue. Two guys were at the center of the debate. The first is a very recognizable name, St. Augustine of Hippo. The other was a lesser known monk named Pelagius.
Pelagius came up with an idea. He thought, “hey, the way to achieve salvation is to withhold from sin. No sin = no hell. Augustine and a few others had a pretty large beef with this notion. The view of Augustine prevailed, and it the doctrine of the church came to be “fallen man cannot not sin.” The opposite view was ruled a heresy, and is now referred to as “pelagianism.”
My answer to the question is, I don’t think it matters if sin is by choice or not. It still is sin. Perhaps that is why in the Lutheran Book of Worship, the brief order of confession always spoke to me… “I have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done, and by what I have left undone.” Sin abounds (as does Grace).
July 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Kathy McDougall
Thank you for your kind response. I now understand were the Lutheran idea of “permanent sin” in man comes from. But this is my thought process.
If Hell is man without God, wouldn’t sin be the same? Withholding from sin is not the answer, in my mind. I mean, it was, perhaps, at the beginning, but it is not an option for us now. Once we fell through Adam and Eve there was no going back.
Sin is in us and we battle it every day. We truly are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. But we are freed by God showing us a better way, not by Him forcing us to do the right thing. We will never be without sin but we can reduce the harm we do in this realm by following what God does.
Yes, we need God’s Grace to feel whole. Without God we do feel wretched (sorry Hous). But with God we can do great things even though we have sin in us. You are God’s greatest creation and as such you are meant for great things. If you have total depravity in God’s eyes why does he still love you?
July 12, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Lyle Snyder
David asked me to move my facebook comment on the video over to here. So here it is.
I believe in both original sin and original empathy (though I would call it more akin to imago dei). This is because I do take issue with the word Empathy. I agree with the likes of systems thinkers like Murray Bowen, Ed Friedman, and Michael Kerr, that Empathy doesn’t actually exist. It is a made-up word. It is impossible to feel another person’s pain, we only feel our own pain (which our own pain is often a response to another’s pain). I am going to research the study that Rifkin sited. If the neuron’s that the study focused on were in the amygdala (where emotions are situated), also known as the lower order brain or reptillian brain, than I would say Rifkin’s understanding of the study is incorrect. The amygdala, or reptillian brain, is primarily where fight or flight comes from. So if our amygdala responds to anger, it is because we are looking for our own safety.
I would agree with Rifkin that our sense of tribalism (who is community and who is not) has changed greatly over time. What is odd and I think a new historical development is now communal identity is being forged not on basis of geography, but on basis of ideology.
Even though I disagree with his ideas, thanks for the post. It got me thinking.
July 12, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Kathy McDougall
While going to school to get a degree in Human Services they taught me the difference between sympathy and empathy.
Empathy means you feel someone else’s pain. When you feel someone’s pain you are as immobilize as they are. You cannot help that person because you are also in pain.
Sympathy means you understand someone else’s pain. In this position you can help the person because although you can understand were they are coming from you can think clearly.
Do you think he meant empathy or sympathy?
July 14, 2010 at 6:30 am
Lyle Snyder
Kathy: I am not sure. That is a really good question. I watched the video again, and I am not sure if the speaker meant empathy or sympathy.
July 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm
David Housholder
This is a really strong post and i hope everyone will read it.
July 12, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
I have had a similar ongoing discussion with a friend in Indiana who basically asks, “why doesn’t God . . .” fill in the blank. Why didn’t God make us perfect, which is to say why didn’t God make us identical? I think that the answer (oh let’s face it I can’t know the mind of God, but I can pretend) is that we are far more interesting (both to God and each other) the imperfect way we are.
One of my favorite artworks is Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”. Would a simple photograph taken from the spot Van Gogh stood be as breathtaking. It is the “imperfections” that give the work it’s appeal. It is the same with us. It is our imperfections that make us interesting. But it goes beyond that. God gave us something that allows us to realize our imperfections and to embrace our creator who made us that way.
I to do not like “we are in bondage . . and cannot free ourselves”, but I also don’t like “the wages of sin . . .”. I may not like these to be true, but without the truth behind them what would be the point of a savior.
I just reread what I wrote. I guess I’m more tired than I thought I was. I hope you can emphasize with that.
July 12, 2010 at 8:27 pm
David Housholder
Bingo, Randy (re: Van Gogh). It’s the coins with the imperfections printed into them that are the most valuable to collectors.
July 12, 2010 at 7:50 pm
john clark
I viewed the Utube video you suggested. I find that I agree with it whole heartedly. I would only make one other observation that the video seems to have overlooked. We are indeed social creetures that are able to empathize with both other humans and other creatures, but we are not of only one nature. We have evolved as social predators and as such we have two sides to our nature. The social side that finds safety in numbers as do other social species but we also have a predatory side that finds safety in power and agressive behavior. There is a constant battle going on between the two sides of our nature. Self preservation by the agressive acts that enable us to fend for our selves and the social acts that enable us to gane protection and nurishment from the group. We have wrestled with these two sides for eons. We equate them to the godly and the sinful natures because we feered the predator for what seemed to be for ever when we were still only the prey. Then we also became predators to servive. We have always feared the beast but now the beast is a part of us. Knowing what that beast is capable of leeds us to feer one another as we once feered the other beasts of the forest. As the video suggest , as sentient beings it is our duty to stress the social empethetic side of our nature over the predatory self absorbed nature that is still a part of us. It definetly had its place in history and reason for being when we were on the brink of extinction, but now we must set it aside so that we can participate in the bigger picture that includes all of us and all of our planet. I would call it the maturing of the species, that extention of empethy to wards all life so that we can servive our own nature. We are not born in sin, we are born with the potential to be both demons and angles, and now we must make the tough choices that will enable us to servive our selves. It’s just time to grow up you all.
July 12, 2010 at 8:41 pm
john clark
I just went back to read all the other comments before mine. I would like to stress that religions of all kinds have been invented by man to explane the creation of the universe we live in and where we stand in it. As we become more aware of the true nature of the universe we begin to realize that we are only a miniscule part of it. What happens here is probably of consequence to no one other than our selves. I am not an athiest. I believe that there is a specific nature to the way the universe operates. I believe in cause and effect. Learning the rules and abiding by them is how we servive. You can call that nature the nature of God if you like. I am an artist and I feel that you can learn much about the artist by studying his work. I see God as that artist that created it all, and studying the all that is will lead us to a better understanding of the nature of the artist that created it. We must study all that we see and try to understand it. It is our responsibility to try to understand God not his responsibility to understand us. He already does. If you want an inkling of what that is like, Think about the time you watched some kids playing and you knew before hand what the out come of the situation was going to be. The kids them selves didn’t have a clue, But you did not interfeer because you knew that they needed that learning experience. I think God leaves us to our own devises but has given us a brain to figure things out with. The real story or moral of the Bible is the same as the natural reality that you must learn or die. That can pertain to an entire species just as it can to an individual. Christ often pointed to nature to show us what is real and what is not. At the feeding of the five thousand there was no miracle, He only pointed the way by the example of sharing. Some have much and some have little and some have none. When the crowd fallowed his example there was plenty for all, and even left overs. If all the world had a cover dish supper would any go hungry or would there be left overs. I’ve never been to a cover dish that didn’t have left overs. Remember the birds of the field neither do they reep nore do they sew. Balance is what nature preffers. It is mans feer and greed that creates the imbalances we see today. On the cross he said if they are so while the branch is green how shall they be when it is hardened. Well now it is hardened, and you can see the result he feered. Christ well understood the nature of man and truely wished that we would enphasize our social nature over our predatory side. He gave his own life to show that sacrefice is nescesary for the survival of the group. With out the giving up of what you truely do not need for your self you will not be able to maintain a balance that will ensure the servival of your species.
July 12, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Frank Guerra
I can say most assuredly that before Christ “found” me I was a wretch. We’ve all been given some revelation of light, but there is far more darkness and men love darkness rather than light. Non believers can be nice people, i know at least one😛, but in their core being they are corrupt. Deep down God offends us because He is holy and we are not. That’s what’s offensive about the gospel, He has the right and intends to judge sin. I think total depravity has to do with our relation to God and our inability to come to terms with Him and His word.
July 12, 2010 at 8:29 pm
David Housholder
You can certainly believe there is more darkness than light and that people love it more, but is that a true statement from the point of view of the ultimate observer (God)? I see a lot of light and a lot of darkness in creation. As to which is more? I’ll go with light. God is on the throne.
July 12, 2010 at 8:55 pm
john clark
I’m sorry to say that most of what is being said here is not very real. These descriptions of God are from a very narrow view point. Didn’t any one else here see the video that was offered? How can you people go on and on about details with out looking at the bigger picture. Have you all been so indoctrinated that you are blind to the real world out there? There is no one religion that has the corner on God or reality. Religion is an evolving thing. It has changed over and over again and will continue to change as mans contiousnes grows.
July 13, 2010 at 12:39 am
Stephen
That’s a very man-centric view of God. Religion doesn’t lead us to God; God leads us to God. I didn’t see the video, but I did read the book. The one God wrote called the Bible.
The question should start with God and what he wants us to understand. God revealed himself by sending his son to the earth to live a perfect life as a man and a testimony to himself. Afterward, he died to pay for our sins and was then resurrected to give us new life. In order that this would be know, he then inspired a bunch of books to be written that would recount his life and ministry on earth, but also added some knowledge he wanted us, in his infinite wisdom and love, to know.
“Religion” only evolves because man insists on changing the story to suit his own story. God doesn’t change and neither does his story.
July 12, 2010 at 9:15 pm
john clark
I have never found anything offensive about the Gospel or the Bible or what ever you wish to call it. I see it as mans ernest effort to understand or explane the deeper misteries of life. Like what happens when you die, or what is the meening of life, how did this all come to be, But it is the efforts of the ancients who were pretty clules about the realities of our universe. They believed in a diety some where in the ski who looked down upon us and judged us and punished us. They were just a small step above those who came before them who believed in spirits in the forests, or multipul Gods being responsible for different misterious forces in nature. I feel that it is our responsibility to try to understand on an even deeper level than the ancients because we have much more knowledge at our disposal. To remain ignorant and to propose that we continue for ever with a single dogmatic religion is to move away from the spirit of the Gospels. Was it not said you shall do grater things than I have done. Was it not said seek and ye shall find. Was it not said ask and it shall be given. Was it not said as ye believe so shall ye recieve. Was it not said that which you glorify shall be your reword? Can you not glorify love and peace as he wished. Fallow the grate commandment to love your God and to love your neighbor as your self. This is the spirit of all the commandments and I might add the spirit of every major religion on Earth.
July 13, 2010 at 12:40 am
Stephen
Jesus also said: “I am the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me.”
July 13, 2010 at 6:22 am
Luke Allison
“To remain ignorant and to propose that we continue for ever with a single dogmatic religion is to move away from the spirit of the Gospels.”
John,
Can you explain this statement to me a little better? 1. How do you know that maintaining a “single” religion is ignorant?
2. Where in the Gospels is there any teaching on pluralism?
Please keep your reply short so we can engage in a dialogue. I don’t want to wade through a massively typed paragraph.
July 13, 2010 at 8:09 am
Jason Kramme
I’ll hold to total depravity insofar as it is understood to mean that we are unable to achieve anything like the Christian understanding of salvation apart from faith in what God has done through Christ on the Cross. I think that we will just end up splitting hairs and talking around each other if we start to bring ethical and moral judgments into this–that’s a debate for sanctification another day.
I do want to respond to one of your points, John. You’ve suggested that more knowledge yields greater ethical/moral virtue. The argument goes something like, “the more we know, the better we are.” Is this really empirically verifiable? Or even theoretically so? Empirically speaking, if it is true, then why are some of the smartest people in the world still making bombs, fleecing the poor, and running sex-trafficking rings? Shouldn’t they have moved beyond this by now?
Humanism is a really good ideal, but it has never, and will never make contact with reality.
July 12, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Frank Guerra
I’m sorry, I should be a bit clearer, The darkness I am referring to is internal.
July 13, 2010 at 6:10 am
Luke Allison
I don’t like “total depravity” in 2010 either.
I like: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which
you formerly walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the air, of the spirit that is now
working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too
all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the
desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature
children of wrath, even as the rest.” – Ephesians 2:1-4
Romans 8:7 “because the mind set on the flesh is
hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to
the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.”
“But a natural man does not
accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they
are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually appraised.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
Colossians 1:21 “And although you were formerly
alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil
deeds…”
John 8:34 “Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say
to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of
sin.”
Not to mention that ENTIRE first part of the Bible we call the Old Testament.
The question to me isn’t so much “what if total depravity is wrong?”, it’s “Why did Jesus die if we have even a .0000001 percent chance to be righteous without Him?”
What’s with the Old Testament sacrificial system? What’s with Passover’s perfect foreshadowing of Christ’s death? What’s with the Flood? What’s with the woe and weal oracles all throughout the minor and major prophets? What’s with the entire Mosaic Law? What’s with God’s jealousy and hatred of idolatry?
It’s not that the concept of total depravity is wrong, it’s that the way we teach hasn’t moved past the Reformation in a lot of ways.
For instance, I don’t think Scripture teaches that infants are sinful. Neither did the Jews. We’re not going to get too many college students to listen to us if we talk about babies being “wicked and adulterous”, right?
What we forget is that people value the self above all else in 2010. That’s why vague “spirituality” is bandied about with such frequency. A religion that is “true to self” is valued rather highly nowadays.
But what if your self isn’t true to you? What if all the blabber about “self-expression” and “individualism” is just a broken response to the impossible demand of being “good”?
In a culture that reveres self, we need to show that the self is untrustworthy, and that sin, rather than being a tendency towards homosexuality, pedophilia, murder, rape, or smoking, is the desire in created beings to worship other created things, rather than worship the creator. This is, after all, the great teleological trajectory of Scripture: you either worship God, or you worship something else. There is no “neutral”.
Many better writers have said it before, but I’ll reiterate: In the end, there are two options: Christianity or paganism. Worship the Creator, or worship the creation, whatever or whoever that may be.
So what if total depravity teaching is wrong? Teach sin in a Biblical way, then. Just let’s not pretend the ability to save oneself exists within one’s self.
July 13, 2010 at 6:34 am
David Housholder
As always, Luke, a helpful re-framing of the topic.
Evangelists are ALWAYS in the re-framing business. Those of us who self-identify as “conservative” (like me) theologically always get attacked for this re-framing, not by pagans, but by fellow conservatives.
Wineskins get old in about 15 minutes in today’s global culture.
There’s a lot at stake.
July 13, 2010 at 6:47 am
Bjorn Lervik
An interesting book on looking at the “other side of depravity’ issue is Kris Vallaton and Bill Johnson’s book, “The Supernatural Ways of Royalty, ” which speaks about our true identity as Sons and Daughters of the living God. Let’s look at what we can be rather than what we were, whether total, partial, or whatever….interesting comments, none the less….
July 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm
David Housholder
Empowerment literature and total dependence on the cross are NOT mutually exclusive. Good points. Bill Johnson gets this right.
July 13, 2010 at 7:27 am
Per Nilsen
http://www.qideas.org/blog/born-to-sin.aspx
Here’s an interesting blog based upon the “science” of sin. It’s assertion: that we are hardwired to violate certain boundaries that common culture has defined as “sin”.
That prompts another interesting question…..”Who sets the boundary called “sin”?”
Which raises another important question, “Who defines what is “good?””
(Andy Stanley wrote a nice short read on this question entitled, “How Good is Good Enough?”)
Both of these questions point to a major problem in the debate……. multiple plumb-lines are used that seek to justify personal or community definitions of convenience. Which is, in my opinion, the strongest argument for original sin.
July 13, 2010 at 9:03 am
Luke Allison
Pastor Per,
That prompts another interesting question…..”Who sets the boundary called “sin”?”
Which raises another important question, “Who defines what is “good?””
The ultimate question, I think. The strange bastard child of science and philosophy, “EVOLUTION! THE THEORY OF ALL THINGS!”has caused us to attribute ultimate causes of morality and virtue to THE UNIVERSE. How does that work when, according to secular thought, those very feelings of morality or cosmic virtue are essentially a burp or a fart in our collective consciousness??
There’s no such thing as “virtue” or “morality” in a worldview that does not include a God who is more than just a “cause”, but is actually a person, the superlative version of all those virtues which we hold dear.
Evolutionary ethics or altruistic behavior don’t explain why people value human life, although they do present a decent case for euthanasia and eugenics-based abortion. If humans merely proceeded according to what was best for their collective survival, then there wouldn’t be any hedonistic suicides or rockstar crash and burn stories. People can spend their whole life pursuing pleasure and giving to charity, and still blow their own head off (Kurt Cobain) due to feelings of insecurity or depression.
The fact of the matter is that, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, all humans were made by Yahweh, and so they owe Him everything. By nature, people in the dark hate the light, because the light reveals everything and tells the truth about who we really are.
I had to come to the truth of my own sinfulness when I admitted to God that I loved pornography more than my wife. Anything less gritty and real would be a lie, and He knows it. Only then was I able to move forward in the healing process. I had ended the actual “action” of pornographic idolatry long before, but the heart idolatry was still dominating me.
Admitting that the heart is truly deceitful and wicked is maybe the hardest thing an upwardly mobile American man can do. Anything less is lying to God and ourselves.
Good thoughts.
July 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Jay Egenes
I’ve been thinking about the video. It suggests that empathy (some of the comments above suggest that sympathy may be a better word) is the “invisible hand.”
That’s actually pretty close to what Adam Smith meant when he coined the term in Wealth of Nations.
Free-market economists and their political followers often speak or write as if the invisible hand is simply the result of the aggregate of all individual desires, regulated by market forces alone, producing collective behavior that optimizes results for a given economic system.
What Smith actually thought was that the invisible hand resulted from loyalty to a particular society, nation, or community. People will at least some of the time buy local products (think either your truly local community or “Made in the USA”) even if they are not the best economic deal, because of loyalty to (the video would call it empathy for) the local community or the nation. People would not always seek the best economic deal, but would do what they thought was best for some particular group of people with whom they could identify in some way.
Then think about how that changes as we are able to empathize, sympathyze or identify with a broader subset of the total world population.
Do we still “buy local” or Made in the USA? What if a GM vehicle is made in Canada or Mexico, but a Nissan or Toyota is made in the United States? Do we care about the working or environmental conditions where a product is manufactured?
Why do my wife and I both drive hybrid vehicles? Is it because we believe we’ll get the extra cost back in savings over the life of the vehicle? Is it because we think we’ll save that much gas that it makes a difference? Is it because we’d like to encourage people in the auto business to continue to explore and work on alternative technologies, because over time that will reduce dependence on oil and eventually reduce air pollution?
What does it mean to empathize more broadly? And how does thinking about the invisible hand as meaning that we should care about other people with whom we can empathize affect our view of the “free market” and economic regulation?
July 13, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Ryan Alexander
I’m on study leave and just happened to get hijacked into this topic. By Mark Driscoll in Doctrine and now Hous. Led me back to Luther’s Bondage of the Will. And a lunchtime debate with my mother-in-law. The conversation over human depravity cannot be divorced from the concept of God’s call/election/predestination to eternal salvation (for some). Or the question “Why are some saved and not others?” If we are not totally depraved (I like “fallen” better) and ultimately in bondage to our sinful nature, therefore possessing some capacity and potential to rise above our sinfulness, why doesn’t everyone do so? Is their God-given degree of sinfulness greater or more corrupt or more oppressive than those who do? Are some born with a greater capacity to overcome sin? Or, as fate would have it, are some granted better lots in life, making it easier to employ their spark of divine goodness? All of these dilemmas are resolved by the theological stance which says we are all utterly, ultimately and equally incapable of overriding our sinful nature on our own…and that it is literally only by an act of God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit that we come to salvation. We are intended to be divine image bearers, a restorative reality which God supremely values as evidenced by his divine sacrifice on the cross. Only by the cross and resurrection is our rightful, original image is restored. Why some are called/saved and not others, in agreement with Luther and more importantly the Bible, probably best remains a mystery. The thought that God would give some people advantages in any of the dilemmas above is immeasurably more disturbing and implausible than simply accepting that all are utterly sinful and that God, in his mercy and love, chooses to save some…so there then!
July 14, 2010 at 7:24 am
Luke Allison
Ryan,
I once heard a lecture where the teacher was trying to address this idea. A younger girl took issue with the notion that humans have no ability nor inclination towards God.
He simply asked her: “You’re a Christian, right?” She said yes. Then he asked “Do you have friends that aren’t Christians?” She said yes, my roommate and best friend. Then he said “Why is she not a Christian and you are? Are you better than her? Do you have more of a righteous heart than she does?” The girl said of course not, that’s offensive, etc.
The teacher then said: “So if you’re not better, are you the same?” Yes.
“So why did you become a Christian and she didn’t?” I guess it was because my heart was softer or something.
“How did that happen?”
Everyone believes in election, whether they acknowledge it or not, because the alternative is much more offensive.
July 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm
John Alexander
Haven’t been able to read through all the extensive comments, but thought I would add some words from R.C. Sproul. Personally, he helped clarify the difference between “Total Depravity” and “Utter Depravity.”
R.C. Sproul:
“Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and “utter” depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are
depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin.
Perhaps “radical corruption” is a better term to describe our fallen condition than “total depravity.” I am using the word “radical” not so much to mean “extreme,” but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. “Radical” comes from the Latin word for “root” or “core.” Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: “There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.” Romans 3:10-12
It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); we are “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14); we are in “captivity to the law of sin” (Romans 7:23); and “by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).”
Thoughts?
July 14, 2010 at 7:26 am
Luke Allison
Exactly, which is why total depravity needs to be contextualized and unpacked in a way that makes sense to a “guiltless” society.
Sproul has made pretty much every doctrine warm and tasty to me.
July 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm
John Alexander
Also, wondering if someone could help me answer this question. It was posed to me over at my blog and not sure entirely how to answer it. Luke?
From “Bob”
Hi: I was wondering if you would answer a question. Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin before He created them? If not, then how is it that the plan of salvation was before the foundation of the world? Thanx ahead of time for the answer. Bob
July 14, 2010 at 6:25 am
Luke Allison
I’ll email you some thoughts, brother of a brother and also my brother.
July 14, 2010 at 7:27 am
John Alexander
Sweet! alexa108@gmail.com
July 13, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Ryan Alexander
If we are not totally depraved (I prefer “fallen”) then the cross and empty tomb are nice sidebars in history. Bootstraps will do just fine. Btw, they better be some pretty killer bootstraps…
July 13, 2010 at 7:13 pm
john clark
In answer to Allison. All dogma is ignorance. The contiousness of humanity must continually grow and change as change is the basic constant of the universe. Every thing is constantly evolving including the human condission. The rule is adapt or die. No one including God is going to save your ass. It is up to you. For me the rules of the universe are the rules of God. Sin is that whick goes against the rules of the universe. There is no separation of natural and supernatural. It is all one. Identifying with the all is to identify with God. To realize that god is the instigator of change the creator of change is to understand that all is dynamic. You can not have a universe that does not have yin and yang positive and negative. I believe in a more Eastern God that is the creator of both the positive and the negative forces of the universe. Evil and sin are man made consepts. If you are self orientated with out recognition of your interdependance and inter connectedness to the rest of the world you are sinful. If you have no regard for that which you are a part of, or are not able to identify with what has produced your very existance, you are separate and perseved as evil. It is the recognition that you are a part of the all that enables you to become a positive force in the world rather than a negative one. All people all over the world of all religions perseve these things. Why do you allow your self to ascribe to only one version of God. What makes you think that some old guy’s from the middle East 2000 years ago had all the answers. There have been a good number of Messia types in history making the same clames as Jusus of Nazareth. They to rose from the dead and assended to heaven. You People need to brush up on history so you can put the Bible into perspective. I will not be commenting on this site any more. I can’t deal with the ignorance here.
July 14, 2010 at 6:30 am
Luke Allison
“You People need to brush up on history so you can put the Bible into perspective. I will not be commenting on this site any more. I can’t deal with the ignorance here.”
Well, with this kind of an open-minded, enlightened, peaceful, reconciliatory tone, how could we not engage in the same kind of dialogue? It takes two to tango, buddy.
I’ll just ask you 1 question, feel free to email me at lukea@hosannalc.org
1. How do you know that the viewpoint you just espoused to me is the all-encompassing, all-explaining, all-knowing viewpoint? You’ve made several unsubstantiated claims, such as “Many Messiah figures also rose from the dead and ascended into heaven” as if they’re just plain fact. I’d be willing to engage you in a dialogue, but the point I’m trying to make is this: You’re every bit as dogmatic and close-minded as I am. And I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. If you disagree, let me know.
July 14, 2010 at 6:35 am
Luke Allison
Heck, I’ll even give you my phone number and we can engage in a one on one dialogue if you want. I’m genuinely interested in you.
This isn’t the best way to have this type of conversation. Call me old-fashioned, but face to face is where it’s at, or at least voice to voice.
July 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Stephen Feltmate
According to Gen. 3:22 humanity did not in fact fall into total depravity – rather we became as God and were then prevented from becoming immortal so that we would not be equal with God. So “the Fall” as described in Genesis does not imply that humanity became totally depraved but rather ascended beyond what God had originally intended and were thus inhibited from becoming co-equals with God (for reasons that are not explicitly revealed to us in scripture).
Mortality is what preserves the demarcation between Creator and created. It is indeed a curse of sorts; and perhaps also a gift. Look a little further into Genesis and we see that the new altered state of humanity (having obtained knowledge of Good and Evil) did not work out well. Imagine what immortality would be like in a world such as ours (the phrase “Hell on Earth” comes to mind).
Jesus, in redeeming humanity by both teaching correct conduct (how beings like us should behave in community) and in embodying the scapegoat (the subject of mimetic violence), became the archetype of what humanity could and should be.
Now it is up to us to choose this day who we will serve. Our hope of immortality rests entirely within the mercy of our Creator – not dependent on a prayer we say, sins we confess or anything that we can do. The mission of Jesus was twofold: teach the children of God how to live in harmony with each other on earth AND reveal to us the mercy of God so that we know our hope for life beyond our mortal existence is not in vain.
John 10:34
July 18, 2010 at 3:03 am
David Housholder
Say more about the mimetic scapegoat concept.
July 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm
lylesnyder
Though I am not Stephen, and I am by no means a Rene Girard scholar, but I will answer the best I can.
Mimetic scapegoat, or mimetic response/desire, is a theory espoused by French anthropologist. Basically, the theory of mimetic desire is we desire things that other people desire. A mimetic scapegoat (Jesus), is a response of mimetic desire. We desire to take responsibility upon ourself, but put it on another person.
July 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Stephen Feltmate
I am not a Girard scholar either and approach the concept from a theological perspective. Lyle’s summary is correct; I am not sure that we actually desire to take responsibility upon ourselves as usually the idea behind mimetic violence is to push this responsibility for community tensions upon a scapegoat and thus avoid taking personal responsibility.
I’ve written more about this at Frontier Cafe (here’s the link: http://frontiercafe.blogspot.com/2010/02/end-of-violence-dropping-first-stone.html).
Jesus, in embodying the scapegoat, took upon himself the transgressions of the world. The responsibility for these transgressions historically was placed upon one in a community who was weak or different; the society’s “untouchable”. In Hebrew culture this role was filled by an animal (evidence of a precedent being set is when Abraham was prevented from sacrificing his firstborn son Isaac and “redeeming” him with a ram – see also Exodus 13:13).
Rene Girard’s book “I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightening” will provide a lot more clarity I think. Human sacrifice has been with humanity ever since we obtained the knowledge of Good and Evil and the mechanism that brings this about is “mimetic violence”; Girard’s work chronicles this anthropologically and provides support for the theological concept of redemption.
The theological implication of this in relation to Jesus is this: Jesus embodied the outcast – the children of God that nobody wanted and used to relieve the tensions caused by their own indiscretions. By exposing mimetic violence for what it was (the horror of the unjust murder of an innocent person) Jesus addressed the root of all violence and is so doing provided a way of redemption here on Earth as it is in Heaven.
This does not mean that human beings are totally depraved but rather so often succumb to the mass hysteria that mimetic violence creates within a community. The longer the discord within the community builds, the less likely it becomes that the tensions can be dissipated without bloodshed. Jesus showed us how to break this spell and live harmoniously with each other.
The way of Jesus is the only way that humanity is able to live as God intended with the knowledge of Good and Evil. The kingdom of Heaven is within us; when we have within us the mind of Christ it can indeed be on Earth as it is in Heaven.
The afterlife aspect is another dimension of this that I presently cannot speak to with clarity (my fault, not God’s :-)).
July 18, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Jay Egenes
Help me out with what you mean by “and we became as God”. To the extent that I’ve thought about that at all, I’ve interpreted this phrase in Gen. 3:22, “The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil”, to apply simply to knowledge of good and evil, but not to any other attributes of God. After all, until people experienced sin, how could we know evil?
The result, as I’ve understood it, is that we’re now stuck in an untenable position. We have (imperfect) knowledge of good and evil, but not the ability to use that (imperfect) knowledge very well.
We’ve essentially tried to put ourselves in the position of God (Gen. 3:5), but we don’t have the ability to execute in that position. Think of Bruce in Bruce Almighty. By trying to (1) impress his girlfriend, then (2) make everybody happy, he makes a mess of things.
And that’s at least part of where sin comes from. Sin includes at least three different concepts: (1) failure (missing the mark), (2) breaking of a particular rule or standard, and (3) evil. To the extent that sin is simply failure, we’ve set ourselves up for it. We try to be like God, to put ourselves in God’s place. So we’ve placed ourselves in a situation where we cannot possibly succeed. And the resulting failure is at least a part of what is meant by the word “sin.”
Is this understanding different, and if so how, from what you meant by “we became as God”?
Thanks.
July 18, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Stephen Feltmate
I will try to explain my personal position on this as clearly as I am able.
John 10:34: “Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? ” ”
I have heard this passage explained away through semantics: “Jesus was saying it was THEIR law that said this”. However, Psalm 82 repeats the same phrase. Contextually, the evidence suggests that Jesus was responding not with word games but with a statement of fact: we, created in the image of God, are gods (elohiym – Psalm 82:6).
By gaining knowledge of Good and Evil we became as echad (as an ordinal, alike) of God. Historically, the Church has been very intent on portraying humanity as a small, depraved creation and considered any attempt to bring humanity to a status anywhere near that of God as heretical. Psalm 8:5 is a perfect example of this.
In the KJV this reads: “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.”
The New American Standard gets it right: “Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!”
We were created as gods without the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When we became as echad (an ordinal, alike) of God chaos ensued and immortality was withheld from us. Throughout the Old Testament we see God reaching out to His creation attempting to teach us how to live in harmony with this Knowledge (i.e. the 10 Commandments).
This does not mean that we became “totally depraved” but rather gained something that we (clearly) were not ready for.
I agree with your definition of sin (although I try to avoid using the word as it is often culturally offensive).
My position, rooted in scripture, is that we do have perfect Knowledge of Good and Evil and that this Knowledge is in fact found within the heart of every human being (Romans 2:15). The way of Jesus is the only way in which we can live in harmony while possessing this Knowledge. We are, in fact, gods without immortality – and totally dependent on the mercy of our Creator to restore us in a way that is consistent with the one purpose of God (God’s original intention in creating humanity – to create an image of Himself; and we see evidence of this in humanity’s ability to procreate).
July 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Stephen Feltmate
Jay:
To be honest, I am not entirely sure exactly what “god-likeness” entails. This is something that I think is obscure and perhaps unknowable; in defining God we deny God because God can never be restricted to any definition we attempt to impose. We see only imperfectly and therefore I find that I am unable to answer your question with clarity.
The best I can do is to suggest that if it is true that humanity obtained knowledge that it could not responsibly handle (and this appears to be the case) then it follows that there is additional knowledge available that would solve this problem (which I believe to be the way of Jesus). The inherent nature of humanity is indeed no different than that of God – we were after all created in God’s image. The difference between us then would appear to be similar to that of an adult human and an infant human.
Can you imagine what playground disputes would be like if 6 year old children gained knowledge of nuclear weaponry? I think this is a good metaphor for what happened in “the Fall” (I prefer to call this “the Evolution” – but some do not appreciate the humor :-)).
To answer item 2, I believe that we are unenlightened, divine beings restricted by mortality. 100 years or less is not a lot of time to learn about the nature of the universe. The older I get the more I realize how little knowledge I actually have. Give me a few billion years on this planet and perhaps then I will be able to better understand the intricacies of human relationships.
To address the specific example you provided (and acknowledging ignorance of the details) I suspect that both parties already know exactly what needs to happen to resolve this dispute peacefully. However, this likely involves apologies, acknowledgment of trespass, financial considerations and other ego-diminishing elements that are currently impeding resolution. I have some experience in conflict management and in almost every circumstance it is rooted in unwillingness to let oneself be diminished even if the outcome is peace and reconciliation.
So to summarize: the difference between the nature of humanity and God is (possibly) mortality and knowledge (beyond that of Good and Evil). The most common impediment to good decision making is ego-dominated mimetic rivalry.
Thanks🙂
Stephen
July 19, 2010 at 1:17 pm
luke allison
” So “the Fall” as described in Genesis does not imply that humanity became totally depraved but rather ascended beyond what God had originally intended and were thus inhibited from becoming co-equals with God (for reasons that are not explicitly revealed to us in scripture).”
Stephen,
I really appreciate the deep approach you’re taking to this subject. Have you read Bruce Waltke’s commentary on Genesis, or “An Old Testament Theology”?
He entertains this concept rather brilliantly, I think.
I will say that the general downward spiral of humanity after The Fall (murder, mass murder, general “evil” pre-flood, barbarism post-flood, etc) obviously influenced the concept of “total depravity” as espoused by Augustine and those that came after him.
I do think that we need to do some more reading on what the doctrine of Total Depravity actually implies about humanity. It doesn’t, contrary to what so many Christians seem to believe mean that we are mini-Hitlers looking for the next person to rape, kill, or smoke a cigarette with. What it does mean is that humanity has a general apathy towards and/or hatred for the Creator(Romans 3:10-18). This of course means that a person could, conceivably, be very good, take care of orphans, love lepers, dedicate his or her life to the betterment of mankind, and still hold an innate disdain toward Yahweh which results in alienation and hostility. This would hold up fairly well with your interpretation of Genesis 3, since the unfortunate fall-out of being “god-like” is that one tends to believe nothing can be higher or greater than their godlikeness.
Of course not every person is morally depraved according to the definition of the word (corrupt, defiled, perverted). Augustine happened to struggle particularly in the sexual arena, so he applied that same struggle to every human (which I have a tendency to do myself). But the main point is that a human being (made in God’s image, and yes, potentially a godling) will not naturally submit to the authority of one who is greater. What god would? Which is why the work of Salvation is so beautiful, impossible, and mysterious.
The crux of this whole argument, however, is that, no matter how “god-like” humanity may be, they are still not “God”. We may be “only a little lower”, but that “little lower” represents, I think, a fairly vast gulf of holiness and perfection, which we will come to understand and appreciate in due time.
July 19, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Jay Egenes
Stephen,
Two more questions, if you’re willing to indulge me here:
1. When you say “We are, in fact, gods without immortality,” can you provide a definition of the word “gods”? Much of what you say seems to imply that you mean “God” but absent immortality. I suspect there are other limits to the “god-likeness,” but I’m not sure what if any you think they are.
2. Even given Romans 2:15, I’m unpersuaded about the “perfect Knowledge of Good and Evil,” simply based on experience. I agree that most people (perhaps all people who meet some minimum mental health standard) have a basic sense of Good and Evil or right and wrong. This helps explain the general agreement among different faith traditions as to what does or does not constitute moral behavior. And it’s relatively easy to get to agreement on the “thou shalt nots”. The “thou shalts” are harder. As my sense of right and wrong, my sense of justice and mercy, matures, I find that I’m sensitive to many issues that I would not have noticed at all ten or twenty years ago.
It also seems to me that people who are trying to do the right thing often disagree with others who are trying to do the right thing, sometimes disagreeing so strongly that both sides see the other as evil. As an example, my wife currently sits on the board of a faith-based organization that is being sued by people affiliated with another faith-based organization. The behavior of both groups, I am sure, appears evil to the others, although each group is, I believe, trying to do the right thing for the people ministered to by the organization. If we have “perfect Knowledge of Good and Evil”, how can we be so misguided at times? How can two people or groups of people be sure they are each doing the right thing, yet be diametrically opposed to each other?
Thanks again for your willingness to help me out here as I try to understand your position.
Grace and peace,
Pastor Jay
July 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Stephen Feltmate
I wanted to take some time to think about the points you raised before responding.
I have never read of Bruce Waltke’s work but I will look him up as I am quite interested in exploring this idea in more depth in the future.
Your comment about possessing an “innate disdain” for the Creator was quite interesting because you identify (correctly I think) one of the prime elements of mimetic violence which is holding contempt for the object of one’s admiration. So if human beings do innately feel contempt for their Father then “the Fall” could easily be viewed as the first instance of mimetic violence in human history.
This does not, however, say anything about the inward nature of humanity in terms of depravity, sinfulness or sickness. We make bad decisions but do not become inherently evil. The problem is not a genetic predisposition to inflict harm on other creatures; it is a matter of consciously choosing to direct our minds, to renew our minds, to value correct thinking. This is something which is learned over time.
When I was studying a very traditional form of martial arts one of the requirements was to submit oneself completely to the command of the sensei – both within the dojo and outside of it. Needless to say there were not a lot of students as this concept is very offensive to western sensibilities. In eastern culture, however, this has historically been the norm.
In this training I learned what it was like to submit myself to the guidance of one who is more skilled than I. It was far from oppressive; it was in fact liberating. In casting aside my culturally ingrained need to be independent I discovered that submission to one who is more advanced speeds one’s own advancement and creates a deep, relational bond that cannot be experienced in a relationship where both parties demand “equality”.
We are indeed not God. However, we are also not the sum of our ancestors’ rebellion. There is no doubt in my mind that the Knowledge of Good and Evil would have eventually been given to humanity when we were ready for it. My tentative, unqualified theory is that this was the original mission of Jesus (as his teachings are perfectly suited to the responsible use of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).
My concern with the concept of “total depravity” is that it obscures the true nature of humanity and causes us to view both ourselves and each other as decrepit, unworthy scum rather than holy, divine beings.
Since I began viewing other people as the gods they truly are the way I relate to people has changed significantly. Each one of us is divine; some more knowledgeable than others; some more ethically responsible than others; some less broken than others – but all of us are divine beings formed in the image of God and capable of manifesting a world that brings Heaven to Earth.
July 21, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Jay Egenes
Thanks Stephen.
July 17, 2010 at 2:57 pm
designing women
“We are all born with original sin.”
July 17, 2010 at 3:56 pm
FrrSean
My theology professor in seminary used to call either or thinking “Chinese menu fallacy” which I find amusing and descriptive. Look, it’s both. We are created in God’s image and sinful. The question that Total Depravity can never get it right and one reason im not a Calvinist is the question of whether we can cooperate in our own salvation. If we are totally depraved, and have no ability to help ourselves, it seems to me that there is utterly no hope, for example, for the alcoholic. AA would be frivolous because the alcoholic would have no hope for cooperating with God toward the end of sobriety. This is not to deny sin or say that we are somehow even in a state of sin. The Eastern Orthodox notion of sin as a state of sickness makes a lot more sense to me. When you are sick you can cooperate in getting better or you can make your illness worse by not doing the things to help yourself get better. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t the source of salvation and wellness. Yea, I realize this has a twinge of Pelagius. I think somewhere between Pelagius and Augustine is about right. To the one who says I can do it all myself, I say no. To the one who says we are utterly powerless, I also say no.
Sean
July 18, 2010 at 3:02 am
David Housholder
Isn’t it possible to give the Lord all the credit for our salvation, and still take part fully? Like farming, God provides all the crop growth. We plant and harvest.
July 22, 2010 at 7:08 am
Saint Rodney
Yes, we are both fully responsible. For the farmer, or God can destroy the crop. Only God can save us ( his ability & choice to forgive), but it is our life & we control it (our choice to ask for forgiveness). Though there is hope in me that I can make the right choices on my own, I choose to be guided by God. Even then I sometimes fail. Total depravity with good intentions?
July 23, 2010 at 7:38 am
David Housholder
>>Yes, we are both fully responsible. For the farmer, or God, can destroy the crop.<<
Thanks SR. One of the most profound sound-bites in this discussion. Rock on.
July 19, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Mrs. Hume
I am depraved. Without Christ, it would be quite obvious to all.
July 23, 2010 at 10:45 am
Larry C
For discussion reasons, let’s throw out “original sin” out the window.
The question “have I sinned” would only be problem if one were evangelizing to newborns or toddlers. Once we recognize right from wrong, learn to deceive, and experience guilt, we are capable of sin.
I say capable because only God can determine sin. We cannot label the actions of anyone, other than ourselves, as sin. Some actions may be perceived as inherently sinful, but sin, because it is based on relationship (specifically broken relationship), is a matter between God and the individual.
Christ has never given us the power to forgive sin nor to condemn sinners. He alone is the judge.
There is no doubt that we are un-worthy of God’s forgiveness. That is Grace, getting something we do not deserve. Mercy is not getting what we do deserve.
You may not feel like a “wretch” but a lack of guilt is not evidence of lack of sin. A lack of guilt is a sign of a lack of repentance.
At the same time Christ’s message is Love not condemnation. A relationship with Him is so much more than individual salvation. “…thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” To focus only on forgiveness of my sin would be selfish. Yes my relationship with Christ reconciles me to God but, the purpose for that reconciliation is so I can then do His work in this world, in this life.
Considering the earthly life of Christ, His work in this world was not condemnation and punishment but Love and healing. Forgiveness is healing and forgiveness of sin “heals” our broken relationship with God.
To focus evangelism on sin tells only a part of Christ’s story. In the end focusing on sin is the least effective way to deliver His Message.
Grace & Peace,
July 24, 2010 at 6:47 am
Luke Allison
“At the same time Christ’s message is Love not condemnation. A relationship with Him is so much more than individual salvation. “…thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” To focus only on forgiveness of my sin would be selfish. Yes my relationship with Christ reconciles me to God but, the purpose for that reconciliation is so I can then do His work in this world, in this life.”
I agree with this 100 percent, except for your last statement. I think the purpose of our reconciliation is God. That is, we get God for all eternity, whereas before we were alienated and hostile towards Him. And I don’t see how we can help anyone to grow in the knowledge of that reconciliation without teaching sin as a serious problem.
I don’t ever tell students that their actions are endangering their salvation. Any schmo can do that. I think it’s harder to tell a Christian student that their individual “transgressions” don’t affect their standing with Christ one bit. So that’s out of the way, the “burden” has been lifted, now we just float on doing good deeds and “restoring the world?”
The fact of the matter is that people, young people in particular, have always been great at compartmentalizing behaviors. That particular “bad” action is sin, but my making a boyfriend or girlfriend an idol in my life is just “living”.
When we begin to point out the fact that the natural state of humanity is to worship created things instead of the Creator, we begin to see some of those preconceived notions of what “sin” is melt away.
That’s part of engaging culture: pointing out counterfeit saviors, false gods, and empty promises of perfection too soon.
A common theme amongst the Puritan writers was the idea of sanctification progressing through a constant “feeding off of” our justification. I don’t see how we can preach the cross as an “entry point” into the Christian life, and then focus on “the Kingdom” as the actual practical manifestation of that life. It seems to me that our need for the work of Christ on the cross only becomes greater the more the light of God’s word floods into our hearts and illuminates all those “little” transgressions we didn’t even know about.
I’ve found this article by Timothy Keller helpful.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/9.74.html
September 20, 2010 at 12:23 pm
kevin
“”I don’t see how we can preach the cross as an “entry point” into the Christian life, and then focus on “the Kingdom” as the actual practical manifestation of that life.””
I’m with you on this, Luke.
This theme seems similar to the book Surprised by Grace: God’s Relentless Pursuit of Rebels by Tullian Tchividjian
August 3, 2010 at 6:53 am
David Housholder
After reading all of your excellent posts, I am convinced that we are:
1) Made in the image of God, and that image is not erased by our sin
2) By nature fallible, and cannot free ourselves of sin without Christ
3) Lost when we try to fix things ourselves. Sin actually multiplies if we try to better ourselves without the grace of God and his transformative power.
4) Not doing justice to the complexity of human nature if we overstate human depravity just so we can convince people that they really need Jesus. Overstating and argument actually makes it weaker and we lose credibility as evangelists.
September 8, 2010 at 9:55 am
Kati
Pastor David – or Hous – or whatever they call you —
Have you ever heard of Be In Health Global?
I went to one of their conferences recently and their resources helped me understand sin and see it in a new light, after all the other theological teaching I’ve had on it. Basically they helped me understand Separation better (the way Paul was talking about sin in Romans). I am now seeing sin as something totally separate from myself. It is not me. It is more than an action or a state. It is an actual “being.” I, on the other hand, am marvelous, according to God’s word.😀
It isn’t good for me to go around calling myself a wretch. I was never a wretch, even though I participated with wretched sin. If you watch the movie “Amazing Grace” about the guy who wrote the song, he spent the rest of his new life in Christ in self-bitterness and self-unforgiveness and horror because of his past. THOSE things are sins, too. I don’t want to participate with those sins anymore. Because God says they are not me.
I have a friend who insists on calling herself a “sinner and a saint.” She needs to stop calling herself a sinner and start agreeing with God.
(p.s. I am the one who asked you about forgiving myself and now I get it. I am just at the beginning of believing the above (Be In Health calls it “Walk-Out”), but it is already changing my life.)
September 8, 2010 at 10:02 am
Kati
another p.s. Romans 6:11 says we should consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. I don’t think it gets much clearer than that.
September 8, 2010 at 10:27 am
David Housholder
Amen. Paul rocks.
January 22, 2011 at 6:33 am
Dawn K
Responding to the original post:
“Totally sinful” in what sense?
After following all the links and reading all the comments, I get the feeling that what is being argued against here is the idea that “total depravity” means that apart from God no one can ever do anything good towards his neighbor. This is not the definition of total depravity or original sin that the Reformers held. One of the commenters above put it well:
“I do think that we need to do some more reading on what the doctrine of Total Depravity actually implies about humanity. It doesn’t, contrary to what so many Christians seem to believe mean that we are mini-Hitlers looking for the next person to rape, kill, or smoke a cigarette with. What it does mean is that humanity has a general apathy towards and/or hatred for the Creator(Romans 3:10-18). This of course means that a person could, conceivably, be very good, take care of orphans, love lepers, dedicate his or her life to the betterment of mankind, and still hold an innate disdain toward Yahweh which results in alienation and hostility.”
Total depravity and original sin have to do with the vertical, not the horizontal. They render us naturally hostile toward God and as a result, we do not naturally seek God or want to do His will. Even the good things we do are tainted by sin. Because of this nothing we do can make us acceptable to God – it is only for the sake of Christ and His perfect life, death and resurrection that we are made acceptable to God. Original sin doesn’t mean that apart from God we can never do anything to help our neighbor or care about other people.
January 22, 2011 at 7:00 am
David Housholder
Are we truly naturally hostile to God in the vertical? Or as Rumi, the 13th century Muslim mystic put it, do we have a more or less incurable tendency to forget our relationship with God, and we need to be reminded, constanty…….?
I have never, in my whole life, felt a natural enmity toward God. I was born curious about and loving God. Don’t ever remember feeling anything else.
Good comments, and well articulated, though, Dawn. I just don’t agree.
January 22, 2011 at 7:20 am
Dawn K
Interesting that you should quote a Muslim mystic before quoting the Scriptures.
And I’m not really sure where you get the idea that your feelings are the gauge of what is true and what isn’t. The fact that one is not conscious of sin does not mean that one’s heart is not sinful. I’m curious as to why you, as a professed confessional Lutheran, elevate your feelings above what Scripture teaches.
January 22, 2011 at 8:06 am
David Housholder
There are two ways to be a confessional Lutheran:
1) Legalistically
2) Getting the spirit and intention of the writers and aligning with it.
I choose the latter, and those that choose the former don’t get to vote on my being confessional.
Also, since you bring up my fave book, the Bible, those outside the faith family (e.g. the Magi) often get it right and those within (Temple priests, pharisees) often get it wrong.
And my “feelings” over scripture? The Bible teaches a lot of things about human nature. The Bible is not a systematic theology. Have a look at what Jesus quotes from the OT in John 10:34. We are the crown of creation. The Imago Dei. We are also broken.
We are more complex than “one natured.” Our will is divided toward God. Not hostile.
January 22, 2011 at 11:17 am
Dawn K
You can certainly consider me to be a legalist if you want. But it seems to me as though your claim to “get the spirit and intention of the writers” of the Confessions is an attempt to make the Confessions mean whatever you want them to mean, even if it is exactly the opposite of what the writers of the Confessions actually say. For example, FC Ep I:8-9 says:
“…we believe, teach and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man’s body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Romans 3:10-12]….This damage cannot be fully described [Psalm 19:12]. It cannot be understood by reason, but only from God’s Word.”
And a little later FC Ep I:14-16 condemns the following errors:
“4. We reject the teaching that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, smeared on human nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which the nature has kept its good powers even in spiritual things. 5. We reject the teaching that original sin is only an outward obstacle to the good spiritual powers and not a spoiling or lack of the powers….6. We reject the teaching that in a person the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but a person still has something good in him, even in spiritual things (e.g., capacity, skill, aptitude, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something good).”
So what is the “spirit and intention” of writers with regard to these passages from the Confessions?
Regarding “feelings over Scripture”, you were the one who mentioned your feelings and then used them as an argument against the idea of natural enmity toward God.
The Bible does teach a lot of things about human nature. We were made in the image of God but that image was corrupted by sin. As Christians our will is indeed divided – simul justus et peccator. But in and of ourselves, apart from Christ, we are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1), our mind is hostile to God (Romans 8:7) and cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:14). It says flat out in Romans 8:8 that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. I’m sure you are familiar with Romans 3:9-20 as well. How do you understand these passages?
January 22, 2011 at 11:32 am
David Housholder
The Confessions are nothing more and nothing else than a (very) faithful attempt of Northern European Evangelicals to define themselves over and against the Roman Church to the south. Much of it is deeply colored by the Realpolitik of the day (very late medieval Europe).
As I was raised from deep within the center of the spiritual activity descendants of this Northern European Evangelicalism, I affirm the faithfulness of the Reformers. I in no way push back on them or reject them. I honor my “spiritual parents” in the movement. They did what they had to do, given the situation they faced. And they did it well.
Thus, I am a Lutheran. I can never be anything else. I could join a Catholic or Baptist church, but would be a Lutheran member of those churches.
And when I face, missionally, a much different landscape than the Reformers were facing (i.e. evangelizing in 21st century Southern California), I draw on the best of my heritage to do so. The Lutheran “take” is my default setting, and always will be. I don’t draw on Calvin. Or Aquinas. Or any other theologian.
I love the Solas (Grace, Faith, Word, Christ).
But, Dawn, in a nutshell, I am faithful to the Reformers by going after what they were going after, not by following after the Reformers themselves. I am not a follower of Luther. Or of the writers of the Confessions.
Like Luther, I am a follower of Christ.
And I don’t think Christ loses a lot of sleep over the Confessions.🙂
January 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Dawn K
Nice dodge🙂 The final question from my last post remains: how do you understand the passages I referenced?
I quote the Confessions because I believe them to be in agreement with Scripture, not because I follow Luther or the Reformers instead of Christ.
I’m not really sure what being in a missionally different landscape than the Reformers has to do with the truth regarding original sin. Care to elaborate on that?
January 22, 2011 at 3:35 pm
David Housholder
Simple:
They were trying to get Europe focused on the cross.
The higher your anthropology, the less you need the cross.
The more you emphasize depravity, the more you need the cross.
It’s like a theological teeter-totter. High cross/low anthropology. High anthropology/low cross.
It was a way of finding focus on Jesus in a dog and pony show of medieval Catholicism. And medieval Catholics, unlike Californians in the 21st century, lived with a constant fear of their depravity. It was starting with people where they were. Good missiology.
Thus it was faithful.
Here in California, I am not dealing with medieval Catholics. And my starting with original sin/depravity ends the discussion. Telling them that it’s in the Confessions certifies me as a kook.
And, biblically speaking, original sin is not the whole truth about the human condition. The Bible teaches a complexity vis-a-vis the human condition. Thus the Confessional “Sola Scriptura” trumps any and all details in the Confessions themselves…
Along with the Reformers, I am trying to focus them on Jesus. Thus I have the same goal (Christocentricity–Solus Christus) as the Reformers and am faithful to the Solas. The Reformers and I are thus in alignment.
But low anthropology doesn’t work, missionally, here. Nobody’s buying.
Try it.🙂
As Luther said, the Confessions can be summed up with: “Was Christum treibt” (whatever drives/floats Jesus)
January 22, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Kevin Kuck
Starting with “total depravity” might not be the best way to start missionally, but was that the original question? To copy Dawn’s point:
The question at the top (What if “Total Depravity” and/or “Original Sin” is Wrong?) should be answered based on what the Bible says, not on our feelings about the matter or whether we live in Europe, California, or the moon.
And based on this back and forth between Dawn and Hous, at least Dawn is drawing on Scripture.
January 22, 2011 at 9:11 pm
David Housholder
Scripture is ambiguous about human nature. Easier to prove our virtual divinity from the Bible than total depravity.
Not that I am giving up on monotheism🙂.
Want Bible?
John 10:34 (Jesus quoting Psalm 82)
Genesis 1:26 (gk: ikon of God, heb: silhouette of God)
Psalms 8:5 (read the Hebrew if you want your mind blown)
Matthew 5:48 (if not possible, why command it?)
And I’m just getting started.
Not arguing that we don’t have a sin problem. Not arguing that we need a savior. Just saying that our original state is complex. Beautiful and broken. Not just depravity and original sin.
Some people who’ve never heard the gospel, ever, do amazing, loving, sacrificial things for others, and have a heart to seek after God as best they can.
Original complexity.
You have to read the Bible with massively pre-conceived theological conclusions to see it only one way…
Reductionism, in any field, is simply not the truth. Reality is subtle and nuanced. It’s like when gays and lesbians say “I was born that way.” Too easy; especially with sexuality. We are frightfully complex.
January 23, 2011 at 8:30 am
Kevin Kuck
1. “Some people who’ve never heard the gospel, ever, do amazing, loving, sacrificial things for others, and have a heart to seek after God as best they can.”
NonChristians can do good things apart from knowing God. And Christians can do bad things even though they do know God. But TD/OS is a vertical issue, not horizontal one. (see Dawn’s earlier point on”January 22, 2011 at 6:33 am” for more details)
2. “Matthew 5:48 (if not possible, why command it?)”
That is like saying “Since Jesus told the woman in John 8 to ‘Go and sin no more,’ then that means she could have.” Or, “God gave us the law so that if we followed it perfectly we could obtain righteousness on our own.”
I do buy that. Isn’t the point of the whole book of Hebrews to show us that the point of the law was to show us that we need a savoir because we cannot keep the whole law?
If I were to believe that since Jesus said, “Be perfect as God the Father is perfect” that I can be perfect, that would lead me to a victorious-living kind of theology that I honestly find works-based, depressing and unattainable.
3. “John 10:34 (Jesus quoting Psalm 82)”
I always took this as Jesus mocking the Pharisees, not literally as Jesus saying that we are little-gods. If you are not aware, this “little-gods” theology is big in the Word of Faith health/wealth/prosperity gospel preached by people like Benny Hinn, the Copelands, Joyce Meyers and everyone on TBN. This wiki link may or may not provide more insight into this.
Personally, I found this article explaining “little gods” very helpful.
January 23, 2011 at 2:34 pm
David Housholder
Interesting comments, especially #3. I’m sure you are consistent and apply the same logic to Jesus saying “This is my body…”
“He couldn’t have meant what he said,” when applied to Jesus, can be problematic, don’t you think?
And people have genuine vertical love for God apart from knowing anything about the cross. If you haven’t seen that, renew your passport and get out more🙂.
January 24, 2011 at 12:17 pm
kevin kuck
Are you saying that we don’t need to know Jesus and the cross to love God? As long as one loves whoever they see God to be, then God will honor that love?
I’m confused. Unless I’m reading too much into what you are saying.
Second, I do try and be consistent with what Jesus in the context that it is said. “This is my body,” is symbolic. He broke a loaf a bread, not his literal body, thus what he said was symbolic.
The John 10 verses just shows that Jesus was defending himself from the charge of blasphemy, which is why he quoted Ps 82. The article I linked to explains it better than I can.
So I’m not trying to brush aside what Jesus said with an attitude of “He couldn’t have meant what he said.” I’m only trying to look at the context in which Jesus said what he said.
Otherwise, what do I do with verses like Matthew 5:29? “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.” Is Jesus telling me to rip my eyes out? Because I guarantee that my right eye has caused me to sin already. Is Jesus being literal? Or is he making a larger point about how serious sin is and that we should not minimize and trivialize it?
January 24, 2011 at 8:44 pm
David Housholder
Lots of good thoughts here.
Appreciate how you are trying to lay out Jesus’ teachings.
Personally, I believe he meant what he said with “this is my body” and “ye are gods.” The former, I almost understand. The latter confuses me, but he /so/ underlined it with “scripture cannot be broken.”
I agree with you on the hyperbole in losing an eye or hand. He meant what he said, but it was just an illustration.
Jesus is really hard to nail down in this way.
It’s just that he was so dang emphatic with the “ye are gods” quote. His life was in danger. He was going toe to toe. And he raised the stakes.
Still, don’t pretend, fully, to understand what he meant. But he was drop dead serious and not just playing around.
As for needing Jesus. Of course everyone does. I am a Christ alone salvation guy. Solus Christus.
But I still see people all over the global south who have never even heard of Jesus who have a genuine vertical love for God. Not at all unlike what my dear Christian grandmother had. And she was a cradle to grave Lutheran. Love for God is all cut out of the same cloth.
January 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Dawn K
Define “genuine vertical love for God.” What does that look like?
January 25, 2011 at 8:07 pm
David Housholder
Dawn, that’s an excellent question. Seriously.
I have to travel out of town. Will think about it. Please remind me if I don’t answer.
Thanks for your especially thoughtful posts. You add a LOT to this blog.
January 26, 2011 at 6:17 am
kevin kuck
To add to Dawn’s question, because I had a similar thought:
Does “genuine vertical love for God” ever include people who are Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, or other religions? Whatever your answer is, does the Bible speak to this at all?
And if you think it’s relevant, how does Matthew 7:21-23 fit into your response?
January 26, 2011 at 7:18 am
David Housholder
Good question and I intend to think and respond. There is a biblically supported universality to knowing God apart from our faith tradition. Paul talks about this in Romans (2:14 and 15 and elsewhere). Somehow, humans are hardwired to seek God even as sunflowers follow the light.
When Helen Keller was (after the language breakthrough) told about God, she replied that she already knew him.
I believe in salvation through Christ alone. No other name. All that stuff.
I also believe that you don’t have to overstate the “darkness” people are in without hearing the Gospel to make that point.