Talk:Total depravity/Archive 1

Ambiguity- please clarify?

The sentence:uirhgawega;ghasdngdkngdjesdnzsdjkntgzsdiojnr "The Unity Church argues that persistence in many descendants of the same flaw in the original human demonstrates that fault is with the creator, which is blasphemous." is ambiguous and can be read two different ways. Who considers it blasphemous, the Unity Church or the author of the sentence? (Random passing user)

Entry name

Surely this entry should be for The term total depravity not Total depravity. Harry Potter

The doctrine encompassed by the term is what the article should be about. The only reason that the article begins with "the term total depravity" (ordinarily bad style) is because it continues "is associated with Calvinism". The intention of the sentence is not to say that Calvinism is totally depraved. Mkmcconn

Wesley & the Methodists

I'm a little confused by the line in the objections section, "In contrast, the idea that God can be frustrated leaves a believer in total depravity without any hope at all." Some clarification would be helpful.

KHM03, which part? The "God can be frustrated" part, or the "no hope at all" part. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Wesley affirmed total depravity; he was absolutely convinced of the inherent sinfulness of human beings (though he preferred to talk about "original sin" rather than "total depravity").

(From the Methodist Articles of Religion: "Article VII—Of Original or Birth Sin: Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.")

He viewed humanity's depraved nature, however, somewhat like the Eastern fathers...as a corrupted nature in need of healing by the Great Physician. Thus, with the idea of Christian perfection, humans could be cleansed of total depravity...it need not be "permanent depravity". That's the big difference, in my view, between the Calvinist view and the Methodist view. I'll try and find some sources later. 28 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

You have it, without additional clarification, KHM03. "Permanent depravity" overstates the issue somewhat; but it gets at the heart of the matter. Mkmcconn (Talk)

Wesleyan Methodism (unlike Arminianism in general) does support a strong doctrine of "total inability" (which is more to the point of the Calvinist doctrine, IMHO), right KHM03? For followers of Wesley and Calvin, overcoming that inability is a matter of divine intervention (whether prevenient or irresistible grace), and thus the doctrines are similar, if not identical, up to that point. But I see that Mkmcconn deleted the citations of Methodism in the positive statement of the doctrine and said in the objections section that "Arminians of Wesley's stripe do not affirm total depravity in its earlier sense; although it must be granted that their difference with it is subtle." Can you comment on the similarity of the Methodist doctrine to the Calvinist one stated here?

Flex, Did I delete a citation? Perhaps it was in error, or the over-write bug in the software?Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Also, the last paragraph of the objections section is clearly not NPOV. "However, God is fair, and grants this grace fairly to all persons..." and like sentences needs qualification. I'll work on that after we iron out what the article should say about Methodism and in which section. --Flex June 29, 2005 11:52 (UTC)

"God is fair" is POV - but the point of the passage is to explain clearly the thinking of a Wesleyan Arminian. If you think that the passage should be made clearer (and can do that without filling it with anxious disclaimers all through, which make for very bumpy reading), I understand and support that goal. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

I'll do what I can once we settle what it should say, but disclaimers are a necessary evil in a collaborative project such as this.--Flex June 29, 2005 14:44 (UTC)

It looks much better since you rewrote it, Mkmcconn. --Flex June 29, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

My understanding of Wesley is that he agreed with Calvin regarding the sinful nature of human beings. "Total depravity" itself as a term is not typically used by Wesley, but utilizing other language, it seems to me that he and Calvin were on the same page. Where they differed, as you stated, is how God chooses to deal with the sin/depravity of humankind (Wesley - prevenient grace, at least initially; Calvin - irresistible grace). Again, Wesley differed from Calvin in that he believed that a person's sinful nature could be cleansed as a person was "perfected" or "entirely sanctified". I think (and could be wrong) that Calvin believed that we held on to the sinful nature until either death or the second coming, and at that point God would cleanse us from the sinful nature. But regarding the notion that human beings are corrupt, totally depraved, and completely sinful, Wesley and Calvin were in agreement. Officially, United Methodism has no problem with total depravity as defined on this page...it agrees with our Articles and other doctrinal standards.

Now, having said all that, there have been Wesleyan theologians through the years who have defined total depravity & the sinful nature in other ways, claiming that we are not totally depraved, but mostly depraved. That's not faithful to Wesley, though...nor is it faithful to our official doctrine. It also takes some of the oomph out of the miraculous prevenience of God's grace. Let me say it clearly: regarding total depravity, Wesley was a Calvinist. KHM03 29 June 2005 12:19 (UTC)

To say that Wesley was a Calvinist on this issue is misleading, however. He expressed the Arminian position in a way that some Calvinists approved, true - but, not the same thing. Calvinism was the orthodoxy of his day. Even in rejecting the Calvinist system -as eventually became clear even in his public writings - he faithfully meets Calvinism on its own terms. This is usually interpreted as a matter of skillful rhetoric - not a departure from Arminianism, but an example of how to swing an argument in Arminianism's direction.Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Because doctrine is a system, as the article presently says total depravity in the Wesleyan frame is not of the same family as the Calvinist and Lutherans. But, as it says, this is not to say that Wesleyans do not believe in the depravity of man - from Wesley's writings and hymns (many of which are used in Reformed churches) its evident that he thinks that man is at least as depraved as the Calvinist and Lutheran says he is. Isn't the very fact that his practical system is derisively called "Methodism" a clue that people perceived a difference underlying his views of depravity. Mkmcconn (Talk)

Should the article then put Wesley & the Methodists under "Objections", since he/they/we affirm the idea? Maybe it should be re-labeled. There are those who object...just not the Methodists. KHM03 29 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Good suggestion, KHM03. Done. Please review the changes to see if I've succeeded in incorporating all of your suggestions appropriately. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I think the Wesleyan and Lutheran doctrines should not be relegated to subsections. They should be mentioned in the opening paragraphs which describe what the two systems have in common, and then in a subsection or two, the differences can be detailed. After all, regardless of any differences we might find in the systems, they do use the term to describe their doctrine. Thus, the article should cover them centrally rather than marginalize them.

For instance, from what I get from KHM03's comments and what I've read, Methodists do not differ with Calvinists on the necessity of divine intervention to overcome man's inability; rather, they propose an alternate solution to the same problem of inability. Calvinists say that intervention comes in the form of irresistible saving grace, and Wesleyans say it comes in the form of (irresistible) prevenient grace which allows a person to accept or reject the dispensation of saving grace. The difference seems to me to be that prevenient grace is given to all (not just the elect) and elevates man to where he can make a free choice. Calvinists' version of prevenient grace (Hodge calls it that) is given only to the elect, frees them from the bonds of sin so that each can choose to follow God's call, and additionally makes each willing to follow God. The difference in the two versions of prevenient grace then is one of extent (to mankind or to the elect) and efficacy (makes able or makes willing and able). Comments? --FlexJune 29, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

Yes, they do not differ in believing that divine intervention is necessary to overcome man's inability. However, they do differ in their belief (they don't believe the same things). Or another way of saying it is that, they are not sub-Christian in their belief in original sin. It is not true that they believe that prevenient grace is irresistible. Mkmcconn(Talk) 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

There are vast differences between the two systems of doctrine, to be sure, but I'm suggesting (with a knowledgeable Methodist's support, mind you) that the two systems do not differ on this point of man's inability apart from grace. If you know differently, please cite some sources. As for the resistibility of Methodist's prevenient grace, Wesley himself says: "No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural: It is more properly termed preventing grace. Every man has a greater or less measure of this, which waiteth not for the call of man" (Sermon 85, emphasis his). So if even the worst man has prevenient grace, it seems that it is universally dispensed and thus irresistible in some sense. --Flex June 29, 2005 20:04 (UTC)

You are mixing up "irresistible" somehow, with its opposite, Flex. And it gets right to the point. If this grace is universally distributed, and yet it does not draw every man to the Father through faith in Christ, then it is not "irresistible grace". It is, in fact by definition, "resistible". And just to clarify, it is because Wesleyans conceive of grace as being resistible, that Calvinists think of their view of depravity as being contradictory, rather than supportive, of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Mkmcconn (Talk)

Please note that, the article already says that Calvinists are not alone in believing in human depravity. Lutherans also have a very similar view. In fact (it goes on to say) some Arminians feel that it isn't misleading to say that Wesley is a Calvinist on the issue. This is a point of view, however, which (however mistaken they may be) will find disputers among both, Calvinists and Methodists. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Re irresisitibility: You are right that the promptings to follow God's call are resistible in the Methodist system, but, as per that Wesley quote, if every man has "some measure" of prevenient grace, then it is not resistible in toto or in the same sense that saving grace is resistible. That's how I interpret Wesley and KHM03, and I seek correction if I am mistaken. Aside from the irresistibility of prevenient grace, however, my previous points still stand: the systems differ in how they deal with man's inability, but not at the point of man's inability itself. --Flex June 29, 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Again, you are using the idea of "resistibility" differently from its use in Calvinism, here. You are saying that God gives every man grace, whether they want it or not (the "whether they want it or not" part, you are calling "irresistibility"). But this is not what is meant by the issue of (ir)resistibility. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Perhaps you are trying to compare the Calvinist idea of common grace, to the Wesleyan idea of prevenient grace? They are very similar in many respects. So much so that, some (I will call them hyper-) Calvinists believe that to speak of common grace is to embrace Arminianism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Please...I hate to see Calvinists fighting amongst themselves...then again, maybe it was predestined. Officially, Methodists affirm "total depravity", though they/we do not generally refer to it as such. I think we are confusing doctrines here. The page is for total deparvity. Methodists affirm it, as do Calvinists and Lutherans. We can cite both Wesley & the Articles, and likely loads of Calvin & Luther to show this. Isn't that enough for this article? We can maybe have a section that mentions that Methodists & Calvinists deal with what to do about total depravity in different ways. But, if we focus on the article subject, we don't really need to go into too many differences, because there really are none. Total depravity is a much simpler doctrine than, say, the Atonement. My feeling is that if we focus on the subject at hand, we could really end up with a simple, concise article...with links, of course to prevenient grace, irresistible grace, original sin, etc. What do you think? KHM03 29 June 2005 23:36 (UTC)

No, no. We are free to pick our fights. :-) I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal. --Flex June 30, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Really fellas, you're under-estimating how fervently Arminians (Wesleyan or not) classically believed in the depravity of man, and the Lutherans, the Catholics, and the Orthodox, as well as the Calvinists. All of them agree with Christ: "Apart from me you can do nothing", and "With man it is impossible (to be saved), but with God all things are possible".

So, you can call the doctrine the same everywhere, if you don't like exploring all the messy details. But, if you do this, you won't change the issue that in the large world outside of Wikipedia, the Orthodox have a view of original sin (and human depravity) that is not quite like that of the Catholics, who in turn differ from the Lutherans, who differ from the Calvinists, who differ from the Arminians. What those differences are, are not obviously significant at first, but they are real: as is ultimately made evident in the system of salvation that is worked out, as being sufficient to man's estate. Let's let the article work out those distinctions, while we try at the same time not to be tedious in our details. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Read the re-written introductory paragraphs and see if they are to your liking. Also note that the Wesleyan comparison is of interest because it follows the contention that Arminianism denies the doctrine - the comparison to Wesleyanism follows, by introducting Wesley as the best known proponent of Arminianism, who nevertheless professed strong belief in original sin. Does the structure make sense, now? It leaves room, I think, for whatever expansion of distinctions may be appropriate, between the various conceptions.Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Wesley and the Methodists, part deux

With respect, I still think the article is POV from a Calvinist perspective. In my view, we ought to delineate the doctrine, citing groups which claim to support it (Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.). Then it would be apporopriate to have two additional sections:

• Groups who deny the doctrine & why
• Other issues

The "Other issues" could talk about the ways in which Calvinists, for instance, have had difficulty with the way Methodists define the doctrine. THAT would be an NPOV approach, appropriate for either a "secular" wiki like this or a "general Christian" wiki. Currently, the Calvinist view is still taken as the norm. On to perfection! KHM03 30 June 2005 16:35 (UTC)

I tried to revise to make it NPOV, and I cited various sources to support the changes. Let me know what you think.--Flex June 30, 2005 17:38 (UTC)

KHM03, with at least as much respect, I think that in taking such an approach, you are uprooting the terminology from its most commonly recognized reference. Lutherans and especially Calvinists use this terminology. Other groups do not typically do so. They prefer the historically more respectable, and more ambiguous term: original sin. I'm pretty sure that you guys know that this is the case. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Wesley freely uses the term "total corruption" which we can add to the article if you like. --Flex June 30, 2005 19:58 (UTC)

I've given it my best shot, and left folks unpersuaded that this approach is a mistake. So, I'll just fall out into the spectator crowd for a while, and see if I might be able to find a way to contribute without beating this beat-up drum. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Born Guilty

So, here's the scenario. We proceed to deny that total depravity is the term of choice for one group and not for the others, and then we vanillaize the definition, so that it can easily embrace all the groups that it is used to describe, for example, by deleting this sentence: In effect, every person is born as a guilty conspirator in a universal rebellion against God, and by nature deserves to be rejected by God forever, according to total depravity. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with the sentence above (probably with the opening According to total depravity, or something like that, to keep it NPOV), I think Flex has done an admirable job reconstructing the article. It is more NPOV and it is certainly more rounded. I would not object to an opening line edit reading something like, "Total depravity is a Christian doctrine primarily associated with Calvinism but also affirmed by Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.". That would be fine with me...as would further explication of how Calvin et al defined the doctrine, which is (as Flex correctly notes) Augustinian in nature and therefore shared byKHM03 most denominational families which claim him as an influence (including both Calvinism and Methodism).

Mkmcconn, I don't think Flex has "vanillaized" the article unfairly. Wikipedia is by its very nature "vanillaized", as is any encyclopedic refrence which attempts to be NPOV. There is a wiki site called Theopedia which is POV...conservative Calvinist, to be precise. I attempted a while back to make it more general evangelical, but the site founder objected to a more general evangelical approach (which includes Methodist POVs, Lutheran POVs, etc.), which is his right. You might look at that encyclopedia...but by no means leave this one! KHM03 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

KHM03, the point, if I haven't made it clear enough, is that "Calvinists believe in total depravity" is always true. "Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Martians believe in total depravity" is not always true. This is because, Calvinism by conventional definition is identified with the doctrine of total depravity in a way that no other family of theology is. The new version of the article does not reflect this, and for that reason it is not always telling the truth. Mkmcconn(Talk) 30 June 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Officially, Methodism and Lutheranism, etc., affirm the doctrine. Now, are there Methodists who don't buy it? Yes. Are there self-proclaimed Calvinists who don't? Probably. Are they still Calvinist? Maybe not...but in an NPOV article, we can't judge those people. Yes, total depravity is identified with Calvinism far more than any other family in Christendom...because Calvin et al defined it more precisely than ever before, made it more crucial to their doctrinal framework than possibly any other system, and because, clearly, Calvinists are totally depraved (ha, ha). That's why I advocate an opening line stating that the idea is primarily associated with Calvinism. But this doesn't mean that it isn't also important in the Lutheran schema, the Methodist schema, etc. In point of fact, in 2005, it is a far more "evangelical" doctrine than only Calvinist. The article can say that and still be truthful. It's a universal idea, not a Calvinist one. We can edit it to make clear its historic significance to Calvinism, but it wouldn't be completely accurate to make it pre-eminently Calvinist. KHM03 30 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)

By blurring the explicit reference to Calvinism, the article is really just a redundant side-discussion of non-Catholic views ofOriginal sin. By making several distinguishable ideas seem to be the same, it is self-contradictory, because it suggests that different conceptions of the grace of God, and the efficacy or irresistability of it in answer to man's predicament, do not imply differences in the underlying conception of the nature of sin. Consequently, it fails to be clear, and it fails to be accurate, and it fails to explain, which somehow is okay because it's written for "NPOV". But, I need to take a break from it, and come back after a few days to check my perceptions. So, I won't argue about it any more. Srarting now. And furthermore... ok, Starting ... NOW!Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

That's fine...and may I suggest, upon your return, that you edit a section called "The Calvinist understanding", in which you can go to TOWN on the Calvin stuff! On to perfection! KHM03 30 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, we all agree that there are vast differences in the various systems' view of grace and salvation, but KHM03 and I have been arguing that on this one point of doctrine, there is wide agreement -- i.e., everyone is willing to subscribe to the same or very similar language (cf. the text of the cited sermons, confessions, and catechisms). It is certainly valid to distinguish a single doctrine from a system of doctrine, and here we are saying this one core doctrine is the same (just as we might with, say, the doctrine of Jesus' bodily resurrection, which all the same denominations officially adhere to). You yourself described the distinctions between the Methodist and Calvinist doctrines of inability as "subtle," though up to this point, you haven't presented much evidence or even explanation of these subtleties. I am open to persuasion that the doctrines are different in subtle or even not-so-subtle ways. Semper reformanda! --Flex July 1, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Flex, by percentage and in generalities, we have almost everything in common. Try this little thought-experiment, and consider whether you can agree with this: Arminian atonement could not save, if the Calvinist's conception of depravity is the correct one. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

The grace that draws men to the Father in Arminianism is called common grace in Calvinism. In that latter system, this grace grace common to all men, leaves people in their sins. It does so, because man's estate is conceived of in a fundamentally different way: only the terminology is the same, not the underlying idea. That's what I mean by "subtle". I have explained it. You just either don't see the issue in the same way, or you haven't understood me. I assume that it's the former. Mkmcconn(Talk) 1 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

On paragraph 1: I don't quite follow your thought experiment. Are you using the term "Arminian atonement" in the technical sense of the moral government theory or using synecdoche to refer to their entire salvific scheme (their ordo salutis)? Tease it out for me a little more.

On paragraph 2: It seems more accurate to me to say that they conceive of God's sovereignty differently, not so much man's estate. To make use of a common analogy: In the Arminian scheme, God throws a life preserver to the drowning man, but the man must reach out and grab on. In the Calvinist scheme, God pulls the drowned and dead man from the bottom of the lake onto the shore and brings him back to life. In the Methodist scheme, God resurrects the same dead man but just brings him to the surface of the water where he can either grab the preserver or drown. In the latter systems, the man's estate is the same, but the efficacy of the call is different.--Flex July 1, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Reading over this debate is delightful, really. That may mark me as having a peculiar sense of fun; but I appreciate the patience shown by you and Keith as I have fidgeted. The point that I am trying to make above might be obvious enough now; but the issue is that, "grace" is the solution that fits the problem of man. Both systems teach that grace is sufficient to save man. However, hey are different ideas of grace, because they really are different ideas of man's condition. We don't need to re-open the discussion unless you want to, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **19:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Inability seems to be the issue to me

The opening sentence equates the doctrine of Total Depravity with Total Inability. Is that True?

If so, then I see a clear difference between Wesleyan Arminianism and Calvinism here. The Wesleyan idea of prevenient grace has relieved (or removed) man's inability. When Paul says "The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them," (1 Cor. 2:14) the Wesleyan must say, "But Paul, there is no natural man in this sense, for God's prevenient grace has made everyone able to positively respond to the gospel."

Is this not the case??? Jim Ellis July 1, 2005 12:33 (UTC)

See KHM03's posts in the threads above and the footnotes for the Methodist sources; their support for the doctrine is univocal. Basically, Wesley argued strongly for the inability of man (on this point, Wesley is a Calvinist not an Arminian, said KHM03), but the differences come in when the various systems work out how to solve the problem of man's inability (Methodists use prevenient grace, Calvinists use irresistible, salvific grace, for instance). --Flex July 1, 2005 15:22 (UTC)

If the Arminian's general prevenient grace makes all men able (or, as they say, "restores the capacity to respond to grace"), then Wesley is maintaining a hypothetical inability that actually does not exist. That's my point. They are saying that man would be unable if it weren't for prevenient grace, but since there is, he is able. How is that holding to the inability of man??? Maybe I'm missing something. Regards, Jim Ellis July 1, 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Humans are unable to respond to God's salvific offer without the aid of God's grace (which Methodists call prevenient grace). Humans are so fallen, broken, sinful, that without God's grace enabling/empowering humans, they are completely unable to respond to God (positively) in any way. That's the crux of how sin & prevenient grace function in the Methodist system.

Now, the more important point for an NPOV article on total depravity is...do Methodists affirm the complete and utter sinfulness of humans and their total inability to do any good in and of themselves apart from God's grace? The answer for Methodists, as for Calvinists (et al), is unequivocally yes. So, the article should say that total depravity is a Christian theological concept chiefly identified with Calvinism and also affirmed by Methodist, Lutherans, et al. That's NPOV. Again, it would be fair to have a section detailing (concisely, I would hope) how some Calvinists might have a problem with the Methodist approach to the issue. That would be fair and NPOV, at least potentially. On to perfection! KHM03 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph from the book Responsible Grace by Randy Maddox, considered one of the two or three best "contemporary" summations of Wesley's theology (I won't bore you with its place in Wesley studies...you'll just have to take my word for it!)...from page 82...

"The Extent of Inbeing Sin - Total Depravity

"How bad is this corruption of our faculties? In Reformed theology it became common to describe it as 'total depravity'. This phrase could easily be misunderstood to suggest that every human person is as evil as one could possibly be. Such was not its intent. Reformed theologians meant only to affirm that the corruption of sin decisively affects every faculty of the human person, leaving us incapable of living in God's likeness - or even truly desiring to - through our debilitated powers alone. Even construed in these more limited terms, the affirmation of total depravity was broadly rejected outside of Protestant circles. Not by Wesley (at least after 1738)! While not always using the specific term, he repeatedly affirmed the point that Inbeing Sin's corruption pervades every human faculty and power, leaving us utterly unable to save ourselves (note 125). Fortunately, however, God the Great Physician can heal our diseased nature (note 126)."

Maddox has two notes included...

Note 125 - "For a few examples, see Advice to a People Called Methodist (par. 6); Sermon 21 - 'Sermon on the Mount I'; NT Notes, Rom 6:6; Letter to John Fletcher (22 March 1771)."

Note 126 - "Note how the affirmation of total depravity is followed immediately by the promise of God's healing in Sermon 44 -'Original Sin'."

At any rate, Wesley (and Methodists, as a result) absolutely believed in total depravity...what happens next is where the Calvinists diverge from the true path...or however you choose to see it! Hope this helps...KHM03 1 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Look Mr. KHM03!!! There's only one thing I have to say to you . . . well, make that two!!! For one: I love your embedded sense of humor, it makes me chuckle out loud! And, two: I really appreciate your explanations and interaction here in Wikipedia -- on this topic and others. Keep up the good work. Although, I remain skeptical of the Arminian position, I know you will strive for perfection. :-) I will likely leave changes in this article to you and others. God bless, Jim Ellis July 1, 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Discussion of Changing the Stated Arminian Viewpoint to reflect Article I of the Remonstrant Articles

See Five articles of Remonstrance and read Article I and Article III...I would assert that the Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrants both heartily agreed with the doctrine of total depravity. (see also Reformed Arminianism). I think the common belief stems from the contrasts found between the Arminian five articles and the Calvinist TULIP; many believe that all five points were diametrically opposed. This wasn't the case if you read the Articles clearly - Remonstrants held strongly to total depravity and didn't even come out strongly that salvation could be lost. So the differences are primarily in the ULI of TULIP.

I'm going to rephrase the paragraph in objections with one that is more accurate in light. The paragraph as it stands now reads:

The doctrine of total depravity is also one of the five points of disagreement raised by the Arminian Remonstrants in the Quinquarticular Controversy against the Reformed churches. The Arminian doctrine was condemned at the Synod of Dordrecht, but today it can be found in many evangelical churches and denominations. John Wesley, often identified as an Arminian, actually departs from the Remonstrants on this one point and advocates a strong doctrine of inability.⁸

My change will cause the paragraph to read:

The doctrine of total depravity, along with the substitutionary model of atonement was affirmed as correct by the Five articles of Remonstrance and by Jacobus Arminius himself (see Reformed Arminianism). John Wesley, who strongly identified as with Arminius through publication of his periodical The Arminian, also advocates a strong doctrine of inability.⁸ However some within the Arminian camp depart from this tradition, denying original sin while maintaining salvation through faith (see Semi-Pelagianism).

--David Schroder

I am not opposed to your changes in principle, but I will reiterate the question I lefton your talk page: Where is Reformed Arminianism found in the past and, especially, today? What creeds/confessions support it? What denominations/churches adhere to it? What seminaries promote it officially? Etc. Etc. I know that it exists only because of a few (and relatively obscure, IMHO, but perhaps I'm too provincial) written advocates. For that reason, it seems to me like a minority view.

Moreover, the term "Arminianism" may not be historically accurate, but that is the term that is commonly used to represent the doctrine of many groups today -- and many more than actually follow Arminius, it would seem. For that reason, I would suggest that the common term should be used and the meaning clarified when necessary. The differences should also be noted on the Arminianism and Reformed Arminianism articles.

(PS, it is customary to sign your talk page posts with four tildes so it's easier to track the authors. I added a signature to the above post.) --Flex 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Flex you make some very good points. Unlike Calvinism & related doctrines, Arminians do not have a universal creed or system that they hold to. Sure there are some differences (infra- vs. supra-lapsarianism, hyper- vs. moderate, etc) but those differences are relatively easy to document. And, to the extent of my knowledge (which is limited), I'm not sure that the term "Reformed Arminianism" has much recognizability on its own as both authors that I know of who claim this title are contemporaries. I do agree that the link toReformed Arminianism isn't really necessary, so I'm going to erase that as well as the distinction between Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

The intention of my edit wasn't to create a distinction between doctrines as much as to correct the historical innaccuracy regarding the Five articles of Remonstrance.

Further discussion on Reformed Arminianism probably doesn't belong on this page, so we'll continue on my talk page ;-) If you notice any further objections, please change them and we can continue discussion here. And sorry - I meant to sign (usually do), must have forgotten. David Schroder 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Arminian" and depravity

Hey Flex, I'm glad you corrected the "argument from ignorance" comment - I saw that but figured you'd be along shortly. However, I disagree with your changes about Arminian doctrines of total depravity - particularly the statement which attributes limited depravity as the majority view within Arminianism. I would argue that Wesleyan Methodists comprise the majority of Arminians today (at least in the Western world), and many of those who don't follow Wesley point back to Arminius himself. Both men (and their followers) held very strongly to total depravity. I object to your changes as a Calvinistic caricature of what most Arminians believe.

I would prefer my original statement - which stated that historically Arminius and Wesley held total depravity but that the use of the term Arminian today is too broad to include any single doctrine on depravity. I believe that statement is historically accurate, currently accurate, and a neutral representation that all Arminians - regardless of their stance - would be willing and able to accept.David Schroder 14:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's see what Keith has to say. I'll ping him. In the meantime, do you know of any self-described Arminians who do advocatelimited depravity (as that page claims)? A cursory google didn't turn up any objectors to total depravity except more Pelagian types like Charles Finney. --Flex 15:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the only associations of Arminianism and Limited Depravity that I'm aware of come from Calvinist sources, mostly through lumping Finney, Pelagius, et. al. in with Arminius and Wesley. Historically, it is verifiable that the Contra-Remonstrants (or Dutch Calvinists) publicly accused Arminius of supporting Pelagianism (thus the first linking of the two) but both Arminius and his followers decried this charge.David Schroder 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this the statement in question...?

The term Arminianism, however, has generally come to exclude the doctrine of total depravity in favor of limited depravity, which allows for "an island of righteousness" in human hearts that is uncorrupted by sin.

I'm not sure how true that is. If Methodism is the primary purveyor of Arminianism (which it is), and if the Methodists strongly affirm total depravity (which we do...see "Article VII" here), then to whom has it come to mean support of limited depravity? Certainly not among Methodists. Perhaps we can say that "To Calvinists, it has come to mean..." or "To Calvinists, it has been caricatured as...". That might be more accurate. No Arminian I've ever known affirms limited depravity. KHM03 18:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the statement, Keith. I think the problem here is that we Calvinists conflate semi-Pelagians and Arminians (perhaps because Semi-Pelagians conflate themselves with Arminians?). So my question is, who advocates a Semi-Pelagian doctrine of limited depravity out there (preachers, books, websites, etc.)? Do they call themselves Arminians (whether or not it's historically accurate)?

Moreover, how true is it that Methodism is the "primary purveyor of Arminianism"? What about the Southern Baptists or non-denominationalists? In my experience, it seems like there is a sizable block of non-Methodists out there with Arminian (or perhaps more accurately, Semi-Pelagian?) theology. I don't have any hard numbers on this, and I don't know if we can easily find any. What do you guys think? --Flex 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought the Southern Baptists (such as Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, etc.) were pretty much Calvinist, but I could be wrong there. Either way, Methodism has carried Arminius' banner for 200+ years...and has produced most of the major Arminian works since Arminius himself, Wesley being history's most important Arminian. That's all fair to say, isn't it?

I'm not sure who is semi-Pelagian out there...certainly Liberal Christianity has those elements. Perhaps Finney, whom I haven't researched too deeply (but am aware how much he is despised by many Calvinists).

The accuracy thing is important. Fred Phelps may consider himself a Calvinist, but he isn't one. KKK members might consider themselves Christians, but they're not. So, if a semi-Pelagian considers himself an Arminian, that doesn't make him one, esp. if he denies an important part of the faith. KHM03 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Most Calvinists I know don't consider Stanley and Graham (or, heck, Richard Baxter) to be Calvinists, though I know at least Stanley calls himself one. There's plenty of variation within the Calvinist camp, but I think most Westminster-style (including the Southern Baptist Founders) or Dutch Calvinists would have a hard time accepting any four-point Calvinism as true Calvinism.

I took a pass at the questionable passage. Feel free to change it if you still don't like it. --Flex 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm reasonably comfortable with the passage as you state it now, Flex. Parts of me still cring to see Semi-Pelagianism associated with Arminianism (possibly the same way it hurts me to see Phelps as a Calvinist - or Christian for that matter) but on a neutral site I'm content with their association as long as its disclaimered...the same way I can't object to Phelps, KKK, or anything else.

A comment about Finney...I'm not an expert, but what I've read indicates that he didn't really fit into Calvinist, Arminian, or Pelagian boxes. He didn't claim to be an Arminian although some of his theology was similar, and he did claim to be a Calvinist although his theology wasn't nearly the same. His stance on depravity is viewed by some (most?) Calvinists as heretical, although I wonder if many of these aren't the same ones who brand Arminius and Wesley as heretics also. Billy Graham claimed Finney as a huge inspiration, but apparently he is considered too lofty to include in the accusations. And Graham, as Flex affirmed, has never been overtly Calvinist...he does hold to perseverance, but otherwise presents a Gospel call that both groups would largely accept.

Regarding this continued discussion of "What is an Arminian" as it relates to Wiki...in the same way that articles about Christianity shouldn't focus on Mormons, the article on Arminianism shouldn't focus on Pelagians (semi or otherwise). They do deserve mention, but I don't see how Arminianism can be understood outside the overwhelming and towering influence of Arminius and Wesley. They're like the Washington and Lincoln of that line of theology (or...Lenin and Stalin if you prefer). In the same way, Calvinism has to be defined primarily by Calvin, with support from the various creeds. David Schroder 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding labels: it's hard to decide. Karl Barth is an influential Reformed theologian in one sense, but in another sense, he is outside the mainstream of Calvinism, IMHO. (Similar things could be said about people on the right -- some Theonomists, etc.) In such cases, I think we need to state what someone claims to be and then try to evaluate the accuracy of that label as objectively as possible. (E.g., Is Charles Stanley a Calvinist like he claims? The Perseverance of the Saints article says that despite this claim, most Calvinists consider him not to be.)

So, re connecting Arminianism and Semipelagianism: I agree that they should be distinguished, though I think it should be noted that they are often lumped together, and I guess the burden is on me to find people who mix the two systems but call themselves Arminian. (I'm willing to accept your help, BTW!)

Re Finney: I've read some of his writings and some about him (mostly by critical sources), and by all appearances, he did reject Calvinist and Arminian soteriology (e.g., he thought total depravity was nutzos -- and a lot of the responses by Calvinists to "Arminian" claims about depravity are actually aimed at Finney-esque positions). By denomination he was a Presbyterian, but, according to this article, he had not actually read the Westminster Standards when he was ordained. When he did read them, he vehemently rejected them. For instance, according tothis article, Finney "insists that justification is conditioned on complete and total perfection--that is, 'conformity to the law of God entire,' and not only is the believer capable of this; when he or she transgresses at any point, a fresh justification is required." That brand of Christian Perfection differs widely from Wesley's, which, though also rejected by Calvinism and other systems, is at least not a repudiation of sola fide. --Flex 14:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good post...interesting about Finney. I've always wondered how Norman Geisler would be (is?) handled by Calvinists on Wiki. He's very clearly someone who claims that name and heritage, but he is absolutely a one-point Calvinist (perseverance). And regarding Arminian-Pelagian hybrids, I agree they deserve mention - along with discussion of key similarities and key differences. I'll spent a little bit of time searching online for people who would fit that hybrid, but I'm not sure I'll find much. Most anti-Arminian websites aren't particularly reliable in this regard, and there's not nearly as many pro-Arminian websites. David Schroder 15:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. I think it's more likely that you'll find lots of anti-Calvinist materials than self-described Semipelagian or Arminian writings. --Flex 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance

An anon has twice added (and I have twice removed) this to the bit about omnipotence vs. love:

Logically the Calvin's dictum is, however, an argumentum ad ignorantiam and can be considered afallacy; it doesn't give an answer on the contradiction with God's assumed unconditional love and omnipotence.

Non-Calvinist David Schroder agreed above with my deletion of that text because it is not a correct application of the laws of logic. Feel free to make your case here if you disagree. Otherwise, I'm afraid that this consensus of two and inertia is in our favor for now. --Flex 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Flex, making a consensus of three + inertia. Jim Ellis 14:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicans, the 39 articles and TD

The Anglican communion does not hold Total Depravity as a doctrine. As I understand it, only the Church of England itself requires clergy to state that the articles are not contrary to the will of God. Even so, many Broad Church, High Church and even Low Church clergy do not adhere to them. Therefore, it would seem to be a bit iffy for the article to hold it as an Anglican Doctrine. Thoughts? Anthropax 18:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source to back this up since their Articles have the appearance of a reliable primary source. (Sorry for the late response.) --Flex(talk|contribs) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I would like to convert the footnotes to the WP:FN system. Any objections? --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing section on "Eastern Orthodox Objection"

The following text was added to the article on Aug. 12th:

An Eastern Orthodox Objection is that Total Depravity's implications about the Compilation (or Cannonization) of the New Testament, especially with respect to the Church Fathers of The Council of Carthage of 297 AD (who were inspired by writings of St. Irenaeus), the validity of their work, and the Integrity of the New Testament. Using the Reduction to an Absurdity Method of Mathematicians, if the Doctrine of Total Depravity were True and derrived from Scripture, the Church Fathers would be Totally Depraved and would be Spiritually Unable to perform the task of discarding incorrect Gnostic Scripture and sanctifying (setting apart) the candidate books of the New Testament. By implication, the New Testament becomes "Totally Depraved" (the result of wrongly excluding Good Scripture and/or including Bad Scripture), which is the Absurd Conclusion caused by the introduction of the Doctrine of Total Depravity as a Postulate of Christain Doctrine. It is no accident that Calvinists sacked the tomb of St. Irenaeus in Retaliation.

This is entirely unsourced, and poorly written; in any event, the logical argument it makes is, I think, unsound. (The church fathers, being presumptively gifted with the Holy Spirit as baptised and believing Christians, would not be in the same category as men without Christ--which is the category of men dealt with by the theory of total depravity.)

I'm nuking this section, though if the author (or someone else) wants to put it back in with appropriate citations and some rewriting, I for one would be fine with that. -- Narsil 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a work in progress. It will take me a couple of days to flesh it out; however, I take offense to your calling my prose poorly written. Might I suggest you go back to your Third Grade Grammar book to review the rules of semicolons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by68.89.70.87 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have any questions about the rules of semicolons, consult a grammar book. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 69.151.170.94 (talk •contribs)

First, this argument appears to be original research plain and simple and was thus justly deleted on that ground alone. Supply some citations that make this argument (not just substantiate the premises; cf. WP:SYNTH) if you think it deserves to stay.

Second, you may want to "flesh it out" in a personal sandbox instead of the article itself. Anything you submit to the article is fair game for others to revise, edit, or delete regardless of one's future intentions toward the text.

Third, I doubt this argument, once reliably cited, should be fleshed out anyway. The article should be a summary of accepted knowledge, not a debate. The Orthodox objection should be represented (if at all) in the proportion to the amount of reliable sources that deal with it, of which I strongly suspect there are few since Calvinism and Orthodoxy have had little interaction compared to other Christian traditions.

Fourth, Narsil is surely correct that the argument is founded on an obvious misunderstanding of the doctrine of total depravity, which most certainly does not mean that men are all as bad as they could be, are incapable of coming up with any truth, or are permanently left in the state of depravity (believers like the Fathers would have a new nature, after all). Not to mention that the last sentence is an unsubstantiated ad hominem.

Fifth, the superficial problems with the text include the incorrect use of capitalization, overuse of parentheticals, misspellings, etc. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[relocated from after Flex's second paragraph] Nice Ad hominem attack!!!

[relocated from after Flex's third paragraph] No, we understand each other. It's just that the Calvinists refuse to engage Orthodox, especially when they are caught en flagrante in misquoting or editing scripure, case in point Rev. 22;19 and Deut. 30:19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.170.94(talk • contribs)

First, you may not edit and delete others' comments (see WP:TPG#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable), as you didhere. I have restored both of our comments to the original state, struck (presumably) your own deleted comment and added its replacement, and moved your comments to my reply to the bottom.

Second, on your response: my second paragraph above is hardly an ad hominem, and your response is an accusation, not an argument. However, this is not a forum for debating theology or tearing others down (cf. WP:TPG#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). Please, bring reliably sourced material that addresses the topic at hand, not a disputatious spirit. --Flex(talk/contribs) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

A number of these are no longer functioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale720240 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

It would be interesting if the article could include a note about atheism, since various kinds of atheism or agnosticism seem to include the notion that man is radically incapable of knowing or justifying himself before God. If taken to the extreme, total depravity can become a very anti-Christian philosophy, since it supposes that Jesus is truly beyond the simple reach of the human heart.ADM (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But atheism doesn't believe in God at all - so of course they don't believe people can justify themselves before a non-existent person!

It's not at all an anti-Christian philosophy. The point is that we cannot reach God by our own efforts, but that he can reach us, and did so. 81.129.23.204 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Churches

I see a discussion on the historical origins of this theological concept. But it remains unclear to me whether contemporary Methodist and Reformed Churches and their membership still hold on to this horrible, horrible theology. Believing that even newborn babies are totally depraved in nature is the most pessimistic ideology I have ever encountered. No wonder the Western World has waged so many wars if they consider human nature to be "totally depraved" unless God has preordained the individual to be saved. Undoubtedly, this means that everyone who isn't a Christian (along with lots of Christians, probably) to remain in a state of total depravity. This is just sick and intolerant! And I consider myself a Christian but this probably one reason why the number of atheists is increasing. 64.134.103.56 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your theological opinion, I'm sure that you can get a blog and write all about it if you want. To answer your question, Methodists do not hold this as they tend to be Arminian in their theology and would affirm what is usually called "restricted depravity." Confessional Reformed Churches do hold to this doctrine. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)