Says Ed Brown:
‘Total depravity’ does not mean that people are as bad as possible, rather it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive and weak in its implementation, and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition.
26 responses to “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good to see some solid Reformed doctrine on this blog.
Yes indeed.
I’ve understood ‘total depravity’ – as Ed Brown says – to mean that we are depraved not to the greatest magnitude, but rather to the greatest scope; i.e. everything we say, think, do or don’t do is affected by sin.
“even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive” “even the good”?
Is that all of the good or just some of the good ? I suspect it’s trying to say “all of the good” which means that this part of the definition is no different from saying “people are as bad as possible” which is exactly what the definition prefaces that it is NOT setting out to do. I think there must be a better definition of total depravity.
I must be missing something here because it sounds like Ed Brown is stating the (rather) obvious.
Nah I don’t think it’s obvious. Unless you mean it’s obvious that that is what TD means. It’s not obvious or generally accepted that TD is true.
I’m with Eddy on this one.
And to Celal – ‘bad as possible’ to me would involve a lack of even attempting the good.
The way I see it, TD is like a torch that has been left in a dusty attic for a long long time, such that now the lensy part (the bit what the light shines through) is completely covered in dust. When this torch turns on, light still gets through but none of it emerges pristine and pure and undimmed by the clogging dust.
well done Matthew
Of course Matt is just trying to get his stats up by raising this
vastly controversial and much makigned and doctrine
Yeah I agree, Mr B, Matt is being something of a stat whore.
Hey there Celal, I have to disagree with your interpretation there. I feel like this is stating the obvious, but saying ‘all of the good in humans is faulty’ is nothing like saying ‘humans are as bad as possible’. My view is that good = God, and bad/evil = absence (or perhaps inverse) of God. Human beings, being moral beings made in the image of God, are inspired with the capacity to do good. They do do good — the pages of the Bible, the annals of history and the TV series ‘Mucking In’ (Sunday evenings on NZTV One) all contain a few examples (note that [shock horror] non-believers are capable of it too). EB is saying that TD means that all of this good is faulty. I agree.
For me, the interesting and most important part of this definition is the last bit, which says that no refinement of natural capacities can correct this fault. I wonder if this means that, even in a ‘sanctified’ state (to use a buzzword), we can’t do anything that is 100% good. I think it does.
Celal give us a better definition then
Abraham Lincoln from Civ 3 is capable of good.
Sigh…Aaron
Abraham Lincoln the oppressor of Southern States and slave owner
Aaron, that is a terrible thing to say.
Abraham Lincoln was the great emancipator, even thought emancipation was a bit of pretence in the power game that was the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln probably intended good, but that good was faulty in its premise, false in its motive and weak in its implementation. Anyway, good came of the furore that followed.
I’m quite keen to write an essay on how that (crap) remake of Planet of the Apes has a lot to do with Lincoln. Namely, especially, the final shot. Genius (and crap).
the furore as you call cost 630,000 lives more then the combined American losses in all wars since….also I am told that states rights was the real issue the confederates had the right to leave the union under the articles by which the union was formed in the first place..shorely a tyrant as his assasin accused.
o you mean 630,000 lives more than the combined American losses in all wars since…
Or
630,000 lives, more than…..
Huge difference. I am thinking the former though. And yes civil wars are ugly. And yes I cannot think of a single war in all of the last 2000 years that the instigator went at with entirely pure motives.
The telling point, imho, is Abe’s excellent facial hair. Down with the Confederates! Oh and, yes the US of A does like to paint a rosy picture of its past wherever possible. Human tendance that.
by ‘former’ I of-course mean ‘latter’. Let none accuse me of imperfections.
my appology Matthew I should have inserted a full stop between
“lives’ and ‘more’
No aggressor has ever won a war.
The victor writes history.
My view is that good = God, and bad/evil = absence (or perhaps inverse) of God.
Hi Richface …. Your comment makes me ask some questions : Does Satan do no good at all ? And what is the difference between the ‘total depravity’ of man and the ‘total depravity’ of Satan, assuming there is a difference ? And if there is no difference, why isn’t there ?
This is the problem with how the doctrine of original sin usually gets discussed. Too philosophical/static, not historical enough. Much better is Andrew Basden’s mode: http://www.basden.demon.co.uk/xn/orig.sin.html
Matt, not sure I follow you.
Celal, not sure I follow you, but I would speculate that Satan doesn’t do any good and the difference between Satan’s deprivation and ours is tied up in people’s capacity and intention to do good, regardless of that good’s faulty premise, false motive and weak implementation. There’s a relevant quote by Ed Brown out there somewhere…
Hmm. I’d say that man is totally depraved (unable to achieve complete good), whereas Satan is totally evil (unable to attempt any good at all).
Satan is an embodiment of complete and total rebellion from God on every level, whereas man is tainted by this rebellion but not completely defined by it.
re #20 the Romans did OK for a few centuries the spanish conquest of Central America was up there as well on the money made versus aggressors losses ratio
Hello Matthew Baird … Satan still recognises who God is and presents himself before him (cf Job) so it doesn’t look like “Satan is an embodiment of complete and total rebellion from God on every level”
I can also think of some people who are “tainted by this rebellion and completely defined by it”.