What is Total Depravity? | Apologia Radio Highlight w/ Jeff Durbin 

Find more of us at Apologia Studios by subscribing to Apologia All Access! Get behind-the-scenes content, exclusive podcasts, and more! Click here to learn more. www.apologiastudios.com/landing-page

I asked one of the pastors at the church I was attending why they only preach a feel good message on how to have a better life and never a message on sin and repentance. He told me “that doesn’t get people in the door”. 😩. I no longer attend that “church”.

This is such a good topic! Thanks for discussing it 😄

The human will is in bondage of the sinful nature. Self comes first . Therefore it is not free. But inclined towards evil. Praise be to my Lord who made me alive.

So God is punishing people who could not repent or respond positively to Him unless He gives them the ability to do so, because total depravity ie: total inability insist that they are unable to believe apart from God granting them regeneration?

I lean 5 point, but I wrestle with Matt 22 Marriage feast. I think scripture talks about both views, but I lean Calvinist because to me that puts God higher in my walk.

Layton Flowers is really shaking the nest at apologia.

This is what most people i think don't know or believe as if we can save ourselves or that good morals would save us or that God looks at us as good people in favor.

Paul said in his flesh dwelt no good thing. Yet in his mind he wanted to serve the Lord. The context is his life under the Mosaic Law (see logical flow of Romans 7). So man is not totally depraved. He just is drawn to sin and the Law makes it worse.

I too am guilty of this but we should not just be shooting off scriptures sentences with one or two but scriptures before and after for context and clarity.

@3:46 "We are talking about the nature of man in the fall, that's the main issue...What is the nature of man in the fall?" How is this accurately discussed without looking at what God recorded in Genesis which clearly shows the effects of the fall? The nature of man in the fall according to Gen 3:22 is that man became "like God" knowing BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. It doesn't say that they knew only evil... Fallen man is both a marred image bearer of God and also an image bearer of Adam (Gen 5:1-3). What does this look like? Well, we ought not speculate, we should look at what the Bible says about Adam and Eve after the fall. That is certainly a better biblical example of being spiritually dead than typologies taken from Lazarus. Genesis 3 is most likely what the Apostle Paul has in mind as he spoke of those who are dead in sins and trespasses. We see this blended knowledge of both good and evil in man's response to God in his fallen condition: Gen 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." - Fallen man, dead in sin has an internal knowledge of his own shame. That's why unregenerate men try to do good stuff to try to cover themselves. (BTW - Corpses are not concerned that they are naked, nor do they exert effort to cover their nakedness through good deeds.) Gen 3:8 "And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." - Fallen man, dead in sin has enough capacity to recognize God's presence and existence enough to exert effort to hide from God, now that they are alienated in their minds by wicked works. (BTW - Corpses can't exert effort to try and hide.) So I must clearly be pelagian that thinks that fallen man chases after God... Nope. 😀 Adam didn't pursue God, God initiated and pursued Adam as we see in the next verse: Gen 3:9 "Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" - Why would God speak to a totally depraved spiritually dead man? Doesn't He know Adam has no capacity to respond to God? - Maybe this is where you que the Calvinist to say that God must have regenerated Adam so that Adam could have responded to God's gracious call? Notice also that God doesn't respond with a deterministic mandate for Adam to "Get over here right now" But He presents an invitation for Adam to respond to, and graciously makes inquiry regarding his wicked works, which have alienated him from God. My point? To portray man "so dead" that without pre-faith regeneration he can't respond to the means of the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) and the life-changing power of the Gospel elevates man's fallen condition above the power of the Spirit of God and above the power of the Word of God.

What is the relationship of the Catholic Church to St. Augustine, seeing he was, arguably, the originator of Total Depravity and eventually Calvinism?

Does God make me repent, and call on the name of the Lord? am I programmed to do this by God? That's what Calvinism would have you believe, my repentance means nothing if not from my heart towards God. Proverbs 8:17 I love those that love Me, And those that diligently seek Me will find Me.

Great video and I have added it to my "man" topic notes. One thing I would like to hear discussed more and the video is so close is, how even if man had ability and free will what good would it do? What use is free will and ability for the murder in his condemned state? Can he say to the judge, "I will now do good, set me free" or "I accept you"? Would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I have an honest question, why does God blind those who are already blind?

I. Total Inability By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner cannot come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Saviour, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ The Bible teaches total depravity, and I believe in total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." A preacher brought a wonderful sermon on the depravity of the human heart. And when he finished his message, someone came to him and said," I want you to know I can't swallow that depraved heart that you preached about." The preacher smiled and said, "You don't have to swallow it. It's already in you!" While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it nowhere teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you can come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you will come to Christ. Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37). Here again notice, He did not say, "How often would I have gathered you together, but you could not." No. He said, "Ye would not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would. Revelation 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible, says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely ." If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me." why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me."? The only thing that stands between the sinner and salvation is the sinner's will. God made every man a free moral agent. And God never burglarises the human will. D. L. Moody addressed a large group of sceptics. He said ,"I want to talk about the word believe, the word receive, and the word take." When Mr. Moody had finished his sermon, he asked, "Now who will come and take Christ as Saviour?" One man stood and said, "I can't." Mr. Moody wept and said, "Don't say, 'I can't.' Say, 'I won't!'" And the man said, "Then, I won't!" But another man said, "I will!" Then another said, "I will!" And another said , "I will!" Until scores came to trust Christ as Saviour. Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him...."But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself. Here the Bible says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Saviour. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. John 1:9 says, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Romans 1:19,20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. And Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the Word of God. So in the final analysis, men go to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Christ-"Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Saviour is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural.

What is God doing in the mind of the Arminian as they hear biblical proofs of Total Inability and continue to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation?

I agree with you. Calvinists are totally depraved. So are their false doctrines. ✝️😇

12:35 Zach reads John 3:19. Notice how he reads the verse and then reads "what's our natural inclination? To love darkness." That's not what the verse says, infers, or implicates. He says that it says "we don't want our works to come to light or to be exposed...why? Because they're evil. And why are they evil? Because of the problem of sin." This is not what that verse says. Remember, the beginning of this video rests on the premise that man is ignorant of God. Ignorance of God is ignorance of sin and evil. Zach just said that this verse says that man knows the things he loves are dark and evil and sinful...yet he is also supposed to be ignorant of such. This is a mess!

9:34 begins a good discussion about what "man wants to do" in reference to Ephesians 4. Right off the bat, Zach contradicts himself by saying that man "can not see" and is "ignorant" with the answer being "their hardness of heart." He then says because of this, "they won't see" and "they refuse to see." Won't means "will not," therefore what Zach infers after saying that man is "ignorant," is that man does know and it is not in his will. He also says that man is "ignorant," yet he "refuses" that of which is is supposedly ignorant. This is not possible. Zach elaborates this contradiction further by quoting Jesus to say "you don't want to come to me." That doesn't infer ignorance by any means. This also shoots down the false notion that total depravity is in Scripture since Jesus says that a person can "not want to come."

It’s interesting that he realizes what’s at stake - preaching false doctrine. That’s why I stake my potential salvation on a man in the 16th century who was going off another man in the 5th century. 😮

Yes unless by an external force, this is why Jesus when teaching Nicodemus about being born again says unless by the Water and the Spirit, God is the One who aids us as the Vine aided the cupbearer who was humble to take the aid and depend. Abidance. "If you abide in me you will bear fruit" ability is given by God. Yes he speaks of those who cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are apirotually discerned, now those who are discerned are those who already know, we can discern and question or we can be prideful to say we already know, but since even creation is immeasurable how much more God, so we keep on asking Him for love Wisdom because He sees every possibility direction and thought and intent and result nadi consequence. That's why as the brother also gave wisdom of the bad tree the result is bad fruit. But since we were brought from nothing through the Word of God He does good through our evil. What you meant for evil Gof used for good. "

Question, what would y’all say about Judas? Jesus chose the 12 and already knew that He would be betrayed by Judas so would that fall into “predestination?” Everything was planned, correct? Or how about Peter? Jesus knew that he would be denied by him three times but would eventually feed His sheep. We can’t forget that God is sovereign and “free will” is technically not biblical. These are just some things that my mind is currently tackling. What y’all think?

10:30 begins one of the landmark passages for calvinists as well as one of the most misconstrued and eisegeted passages by those who are reformed. Note that they both presume the conflation that natural man and spiritual man reference unregenerated and regenerated man, respectively. This is dead wrong and not a trap to find oneself in. Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 tells us that the Spirit came to him to give him what to say (v 4) and that "we" (meaning those who received the gift of the Spirit to take to all the nations under heaven as part of the commission, Acts 2, and Paul's commission) had revelation given to them (v. 10, 12). The natural man (one who hadn't received the gift of the Spirit to take revelation to others) does not accept such (v 14) without the Spirit gifting this. However, Paul gives this to the "natural man" by speaking in fleshly terms (3: 1-4). Don't think this is to what this is referring? Paul goes on to clarify that this is how God intended for the Corinthians to receive this information in 3: 5 and following. He is saying, through the Holy Spirit, that God gave spiritual men from the Spirit to teach natural men, who had not the gift of the Spirit, to build His "building" (v 9) and lay a foundation (v 10). Don't fall for what is being written into Scripture here.

The difference between a Jehovah Witness and a Calvinist is a knock on your door.

What is Provisionism? The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist-someone who holds to Provisionism-holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12). The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11-13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; ). In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace. The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect. Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation. Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms. Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood. Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith. Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit. Eternal security: For all true believers.

Total depravity is believe that you are John Calvin having that funny beard and a classic of a wannabe: the tattoos, the beer and probably a cigar too lol

Acts 17:26-27. We were born to seek after God. He is not far from any of us. This scripture proves opposite or total depravity. What do they do with verses like this where they contradict their beliefs?

10:06 - Who hardens their hearts ?

So true! Amen!

Dear Jeff. If you actually believe this, or any of you guys for that matter, that some people will not respond because God wont allow them the ability to respond, and you either have kids, or continue as Pro-Life, then you are absolute monsters!! To knowingly bring someone into this world with the understanding they they are probably going to hell and there is nothing you or they can do about it, from the day they came out of the womb they were inable to do different and God doesnt love them enough to offer a chance to them, is the most sickening selfish horrible thing you can do. What a horrible anti-Christian doctrine.

The problem is you said man has no free will and they only do that which they desire. If man has no free will then who gave them the will. Free will is not a superpower. What those who are not Calvinist or Reformed are saying which misunderstood a lot by Calvinist is man does not save themselves, but they able to respond to the call of Gospel when they hear it. It not man saving themselves but man responding to the gospel in which God saves them. God has no obligation to save man but chooses to save man through the respond to the gospel.

He îs called" Neuitatul " the Unforgotten...after dif social experiments like atheism

In the days of Noah man reached total depravity. God shortened the life span afterwards. In genesis the ground was cursed because of Adams sin . Notice genesis 8:21 I will never again curse the ground because of humankind , even though the inclinations of their minds is evil from childhood on.

Calvinism is for dorks.

Are some of you anti-calvinists LDS?

11:30 So man, according to the principles laid at the beginning of this video, is "ignorant" and "cannot see" God...no ability to come to Him...has a "self will" in which man can choose something and "chooses what he desires." This is bonkers in its self-contradiction.

Religion is confusing. I didn’t have time to watch the whole thing but if I die and go to hell who is at fault?

Total depravity and total inability would make our nature not our own personal fault, therefore we wouldn’t deserve punishment. And couldn’t even be expected to accept the gospel on our own accord, AKA Calvinism.

The Bible is not a salad bar, wherein a person can pick and choose “snippets” of Scripture, as you’re doing in this vlog to attempt to prove your POV. When someone resorts to tactics such as this or some other type of Scripture Twisting they desperately “try” to prove their point(s). This vlog shows some of the poorest exegesis I’ve seen. Bottom line ~ Jeff Durbin and Apologia group are forced into a box of having to twist/pluck Scripture out-of-context, in order to “try” to prove their doctrines of TULIP, Original Sin, which the Catholic Church teaches, and other false beliefs. SMH 🤦‍♀️

Might be me but it seems they really down played what total depravity is. Total is total, not mostly on some gradient scale as it seems they are doing here. Right around 2:15 or so they talk about is it "utter" depravity or not... Would assert in this context there is no difference utter vs. total. Or for that matter even if one might make some distinction effectively there would be no difference. Meaning as we read about Adams's sin in Rom 5 if Adam's sin was effective and capable of poluting the entire human race, hard to see anything that able and capable of spreading, how would it not effect or taint everything? Or that total depravity doesn't mean (2:27) that it we aren't totally ever as we possibly could be. Sorry it makes no sense. Meaning it only take one sin to be a sinner, one lie to make a liar. Hard to see or hears someone even asserting this point. Look at the transition we see in the U.S. now? I live in Seattle, i remember a time when i thought "Thank God Seattle isn't like other cities..." Use to be we would never hear about gun violence and shootings as there might be n Chicago, Detroit and other cities but now they seem to be a daily occurrence here, and most days if there isn't one there are two or more... Sorry but most of the comments by the the host here seem out of touch with reality. Seems they are living in a place there it use to be nice but turned into "plant food"... While it seems just wait, would assert we will see total depravity in effect and it permeates and spreads... Might say i'm reformed but what they are presenting here doesn't properly describe total depravity, or they want to play both side of the issue against each other. Sorry being dead in one's sins... OR as the bible says "even our good deeds are as filthy rags..." and this is our good works? Sorry but all the verse snippets being used here seems like taking the text out of context leaving just a con...

Both of you just denied original sin, and you dont even know it.