Augustine and Total Depravity

That is a key question. Some prefer the term total inability (Boettner) to total depravity.

I think that total depravity at interpreted by most Calvinists overstates the Scriptural record.

We are unable to save ourselves. We cannto earn salvation. But is our will so depraved that we can never desire anything that is good?

We may will something, but because of total inability, we are not able to carry out what we will. I think Romans 7 is the best example if it refers to preconversion Paul.

Unregenerate man may will that which is good but is not able to do the good. Who can rescue us? Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit enables us to actually do the good (Galatians 5).

 

Dan Sailer said:

I think the thing to do is to define what 'good' means in the Scripture.

Whenever Arminians interact with Calvinists on Total Depravity, it appears the understanding of Arminians is that Calvinists are saying man is absolutely not only totally incapable of doing anything good spiritually, but, that man is also not capable of doing anything good morally, not capable of the common decency of loving his own kind, etc., etc.

'Good' needs to be defined, because you can call it 'depravity' or you can call it 'inability' the argument will still go around and around.

Take a look at the arguments already made on Total Depravity on this board.

 

I'm glad to finally see a thread on total depravity because it's not until we understand total depravity that we can proceed to discuss the doctrines connected with it. This is where Arminians and Calvinists part ways, and it surprises me how more often than not the issue debated between Arminians and Calvinists is not depravity but election. If I can't get an Arminian past the first point, I go no further. I'll just be wasting my breath.

Whether you call it total depravity or total inability, it's just plain Bible doctrine.

 

I think Calvin was influenced more by St. Paul.

 

Didn't Augustine open the door for evolutionism to enter the church?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I believe the question of the degree of the freedom of the will after being quickened is a very significant question.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Bro. Dallas

 

As I documented in another thread, Arminius believed in total depravity/inability or whatever you want to call it. So that's not where true Arminians and Calvinsits differ.

 

Dear Npetreley,
I don't know if you are referring to my post or not. But I wanted to clarify that I was referring to a regenerated believer's will.

What degree of that will is 'free'?

If I am not mistaken Arminius believed God enlightens each individual at some point [this is prevenient grace, right?].

But my post was a response to Primitive Baptist's post. In the sense that Calvin and Arminius agreed on Tot. Depravity does differ when you consider Arminius taught prevenient grace permitting the ability to accept or reject redemption in Christ.

bro. Dallas

 

Bro Dallas,

I was responding to PB's message, where he says TD is where Arminians and Calvinists disagree. IMO, that's not where they SHOULD disagree, since Arminius agreed with TD.

"Prevenient grace" may account for the differences, but I'd love to see a Biblical defense of "prevenient grace". Heck, I'd love to see a simple definition of it.

 

The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination
By Loraine Boettner D.D.a

http://www.ccel.org/b/boettner/predest/28.htm

1. Before the Reformation

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century.

The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel.

Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God's absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation.

But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages.

This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect. It will not be denied by anyone acquainted with Church History that Augustine was an eminently great and good man, and that his labors and writings contributed more to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion than did those of any other man between Paul and Luther.

 

So this "cardinal truth" just disappeared after the apostolic age, and then was "discovered" by Augustine? I think not. As the Church tried to define and codify its doctrines, it often used philosophy, read into scripture as "inferential doctrine", and over speculated on many doctrines about God that were rally beyond our comprehension, and nit revealed. Even his concepts of the Trinity (which became influential in the West) were criticized by those on the East as too rationalistic. And in both areas of theology, people came up and taught some things that were truly false, and thus the Church reacted by setting up doctrines purely in opposition. So as Nicea reacted against Arius and Sabellius; Augustine debated Pelagius, whose theology suggested man could save himself, and thus felt it convenient to propose a doctrine of total inabilty necessitationg unconditional election. All the scriptures, especially Paul, were then read in light of this.

 

What you're saying is interesting, Eric.

What would systematic theology look like if we could formulate it from Scripture without having to develope it in the context of heresy?

I know. Mine!

But seriously, I agree with you. It seems that some positions/doctrines are overstated.

 

Wasn't he, as a Catholic a believer in salvation by baptism? I wonder how he figured that squared with "not of works"; "not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man...", etc. I guess it's like what Gilmore, who's Lutheran and holds both doctrines (TD/UE, and salvation by baptism) would explain. I forgot how he puts it, but something about that baptism is gace that comes upon you, or by grace you are led to be baptized, or whatever.

 

Wasn't Augustine influenced by gnosticism, neo-Platonism and Manicheeism? In addition to baptismal regeneration these are good enough reasons for me as a Baptist to take what he wrote with a large dose of salt

Yours in Christ

Matt