Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are [totally depraved](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-fall-of-man-and-total-depravity/) , and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance. Their *reason* rejects God's supremacy, their *will* refuses God's invitation, and their *emotion* recoils against God's goodness. This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin. But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the *sanctification* stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character. Then after death, in the elect's *glorification* stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with *full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God*, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see [Nathaniel's answer to another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/61910/10672)) . My question is: **since we are in the "*already, but not yet*" stage, how do we understand the causes and the nature of progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion, considering that the *telos* of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?** In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, since we are *already* justified, and since the clarion call is to "imitate Jesus", wouldn't it make sense to expect *palpable* and *measurable* progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion? If so, then naturally we seek to understand the *theological causes* and the *practices* that engender those effects. I would like a documented answer quoting a **21st century scholarly (published) work** of a Reformed theologian who **explicitly links** sanctification to *progressive restoration* in reason, will, and emotion, by describing how sanctification works toward the healing, in the Reformed tradition.

When Luther broke from Catholic traditions and (according to Protestants) returned to early Catholic faith and to the teaching of the gospel in the New Testament, a lot of attention was paid on the main difference, that being justification by faith alone. It is right to identify this as the main split, however a second order split seems to go largely unnoticed, which is a different view of sin altogether. Luther thought Christians sin every day, every hour, or rather, every second with ‘mortal sins’, as opposed to ‘venial’ or minor sins. Note: Catholics differentiate types of sins into multiple categories, something that Luther also rejected entirely. It seems most Protestants have little interest in understanding the Catholic views, so the difference over the concept of sin is unsurprisingly easier to find documented by Catholics. **Even though it is written as an apologetic to the Roman Catholic view, here is a fairly good summary on the different view as described by Catholics.** The basic difference is regarding the desires of our flesh: - **Catholic view:** > From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. - **Protestant View:** > Concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin In other words those basic desires that we face every day, in the form of temptations, or in the form of preventing us from perfectly loving God, are not necessarily sins according to Roman Catholic teaching but are essential sins according to Protestant teaching. This Protestant teaching is considered heresy by official Catholic doctrine. In other words, Luther described himself as being way too sinful than what can be accepted by the leaders of the Catholic church, which Luther rejected as being even more sinful than he. Luther says many places in his writings that ‘all our righteousness are as filthy rags’ and all sin is damnable, otherwise it is not a sin, so that even in our good works we sin. Or simply put: > No one is able to love God from his whole heart, etc., and his > neighbor as himself [Mark 12:30–31]. We therefore say that a man is > justified by faith, not by love. (Luther’s Works Vol 34, Page 309) So, my question is: **Is this view of sin unique to Protestants, or are there some other large groups taking the name Christian that also see themselves as committing damnable sins, every day (or in less shocking language ‘to be imperfect’ due to the ‘remaining sinful desires of the flesh’), that they need not fear damnation from, due to their justification apart from their own works? Or is it only the Protestants who have this radical view of sin?** Note: This is by no means saying Luther says we can sin willingly and claim to have faith, he means in our imperfect state due to the flesh, we do sin perpetually unwillingly as we make a most admirable attempt to resist sin and love God because our flesh is essentially sinful, which Catholics deny. ---------- To provide some detail on the background history overt his split between the Catholic Church and Luther and provide some additional historic references. Some modern protestants may not even be aware of fundamental difference. ---------- It actually stems from the 95 Thesis by Martin Luther that eventually resulted on this point in condemnation from the Council of Trent , Canon XXV > CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins > venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and > consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause > only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto > damnation; let him be anathema. A man named Latomus condemned Luther in response to his thesis and Luther subsequently defended his view. In response to Latomus Luther defended his view that even in good works Christians sin. It goes without saying that sin, according to Luther was always damnable if not covered by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith. > If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this > disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of > those who are not righteous. and > The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are > thus not merits, as though they were sinless. In Eccles. 7[:20], we > read, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and > never sins.” In this connection, however, some people say that the > righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be > refuted in the following manner: “If that is what this verse wants to > say, why waste so many words?” or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge > in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be > adequately expressed by the following: “There is not a righteous man > on earth who does not sin.” Why does he add “Who does good,” as if > another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a > righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the > realm of good works he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16], “The righteous man > falls seven times a day.” Here he does not say, “A righteous man falls > seven times a day when he does good.” This is a comparison. If someone > cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good > craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is > when God works through us. (Luther’s Works Vol 31, Page 44) and > The first article attacked by Latomus is this: Every good work is > sin. First, he deduces unacceptable consequences from this thesis; > second, he opposes it with contrary [views]; third, he impugns my > premises. In driving this Sennacherib [2 Kings 19:28; cf. Isa. 37:29] > back to his own land, I shall begin with the last point and thus start > by defending my own position. In order to deprive me of that wonderful > verse in Isa. 64[:6] which reads, “We have all become like one who is > unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags,” he > interprets it so that neither he nor I can use it. > > Luthers Works 32, Page 161 Or again Luther describing the sinful nature in complete opposition to a view that imagining obtaining sinless perfection, even if it be for a few minutes in one day: > In this alone we are saved, therefore, that having sin and living in > sin we grieve because we have it and cry to God for deliverance, in > accord with John’s saying (1 John 1:8–9): “If we say we have no sin, > we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our > sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us > from all unrighteousness.” In this way, yes, in this way, “The > sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and a > contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). “For there > is no man who does not sin,” says Solomon in his prayer (1 Kings > 8:46). And Moses in Ex. 34:7 says: “Before whom no man of himself is > innocent.” And again, Eccl. 7:20 says: “There is not a righteous man > on the earth who does good and never sins.” And again, “Who can say, > ‘I have made my heart clean?’ ” (Prov. 20:9). Therefore: “There is > none righteous. All have turned aside” (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:10, 12). Thus > we pray: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12). And where do these sins > and debts come from? Because no one fulfills the Law except Christ. > For no living man is justified before God, because his heart is always > weak toward the good and prone toward evil. He does not love > righteousness without in some way also loving iniquity. But Christ > “loves righteousness and hates wickedness” (Ps. 45:7). As the apostle > explains later on in chapter 7:25, “With the flesh we serve the law of > sin, but with the spirit the Law of God.” And thus we are partly > righteous, but not wholly so. Thus we have sin and debt. When we pray, > therefore, that our righteousness be made perfect in us and that our > sin be taken away, we are praying at the same time to finish this > life. For in this life this inclination toward evil will never be > perfectly cleansed, just as the Children of Israel, to use a figure of > speech, could not drive out the Jebusites. Hence, immediately after > the petition “Hallowed be Thy name” (which takes place through our > sanctification from sins and evil works) comes the petition “Thy > kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10), as if he were saying that it will not be a > complete sanctification except in Thy kingdom. But this also will not > come except through tribulations. Therefore the words “Thy will be > done” follow, just as Christ prayed in the garden in the time of His > tribulation. (Luther Works 25, page 246)

Many Protestants, though not technically or officially [Reformed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) , are nevertheless strongly influenced by Calvinistic theology; as such, they espouse the doctrine of [total depravity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) , teaching that all men are born under the power of sin (Psalm 51:5). However, a large part of them are also [politically active](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right) , and I couldn't help but notice that this important segment (ascribing to [conversion therapy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy) and associated with the [ex-gay movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement)) also holds to the notion that [no one is born gay, trans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation) , etc., but rather, they embrace certain [discarded psychoanalytical ideas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) about the latter being a product of upbringing; in other words, of [nurture, rather than nature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture) . Granted, I am not exactly arguing that all sin is inborn, and that no vices are learned or (self)taught, but the (religious) zeal with which they (communally) cling to this opinion seems to border on dogma. My bewilderment stems from the (apparent or perceived) contradiction between the two views. Am I missing something? If so, then what?

[Total Depravity](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/tulip-and-reformed-theology-total-depravity) is the Calvinist doctrine that human nature is thoroughly corrupt and sinful as a result of the Fall. Thus we can only do good works through God's grace. What is the earliest document in the church that supports or mentions this doctrine?

In the book [*The Problem of Pain*](https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-problemofpain/lewiscs-problemofpain-00-h.html) CS Lewis said explicitly that he disbelieved [the doctrine of Total Depravity](https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html) despite his - dedicating the whole chapter 4 (Human Wickedness) with 8 very good insights into what human depravity looks like (one of them, #6, is [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65590/10672)) , and - affirming the doctrine of the Fall (which he discussed in chapter 5 - The Fall of Man) as an explanation of how human depravity came about A 2013 blog article [That time C.S. Lewis Got 'Total Depravity' Wrong (like everybody else)](https://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/07/11/that-time-c-s-lewis-got-total-depravity-wrong-like-everybody-else/) thinks C.S. Lewis misunderstood it: > While Lewis is making a very a good point about our analogical knowledge of good and evil, he happens to do so by trading on a widely-popular caricature of the doctrine of total depravity. But the blog article did not explain further whether his description of human wickedness is equivalent to the right understanding of Total Depravity which it describes as follows: > To be clear, the doctrine does not teach that all humanity is as “depraved” as possible. “Total” refers to the scope, not depth, of the problem of sin. It affirms that there is not a single area or part of our nature that has not been subject to sin’s corrupting influence; though created good, not our mind, will, reason, bodily instincts, or anything else that could be singled out, remains untouched by the Fall. As such, there is no leverage or foothold in human nature whereby it might reach up to God, or present any merit, without having first been enlivened by the Holy Spirit’s power. As Michael Horton says, “there is no Archimedean point within us that is left unfallen, from which we might begin to bargain or restore our condition” (The Christian Faith, pg. 433). Nor is there any impulse or instinct that is not subject to correction from God’s Word. > > ...We are able to do relatively good, yet not saving, acts through common grace and common virtue. Good of this sort is nothing to be sneered at and is a testimony to the permanence of the Image of God as well as the gracious, restraining work of the Holy Spirit. **My full question**: Based on all he wrote in *The Problem of Pain*, did C.S. Lewis really repudiate the Reformed / Anglican understanding of Total Depravity? Or did he misunderstand it and that his view of the human condition after the Fall was actually compatible with the right meaning of the doctrine? Note: If Total Depravity as understood by the Church of England is different than how Canon of Dort understood it, would the difference contributes to why C.S. Lewis misunderstood / repudiated the doctrine? Quotes from [*The Problem of Pain*](https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html) (emphasis mine) - Chapter 3 - Divine Goodness, first 3 paragraphs: > Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma. > > On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. > > On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. **The doctrine of Total Depravity— when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing— may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.** - Chapter 4 - Human Wickedness, concluding paragraphs: > **This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature.** Nor am I recommending universal gloom. The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads. I think that insight should be permanent in each man’s mind: but whether the painful emotions that attend it should also be encouraged, is a technical problem of spiritual direction on which, as a layman, I have little call to speak. My own idea, for what it is worth, is that all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad; and I think we all sin by needlessly disobeying the apostolic injunction to ‘rejoice’ as much as by anything else. Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his ‘faith in human nature’, who is really sad. I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional, effect: **I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves.** This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. **No, depend upon it; when the saints say that they—even they—are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy.** > > How did this state of affairs come about? In the next chapter I shall give as much as I can understand of the Christian answer to that question.

John 6:64-65 reads: > “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him. And He was saying “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father”. To me this seems as though it proves total depravity as well as unconditional election because he begins by talking about Judas betraying Jesus and Jesus knowing this from the beginning. And then it says “for this reason” and essentially talks about God choosing/granting salvation to the elect. This would also link to John 6:44: > “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I > will raise them up on the last day.” Wesleyan theology teaches that all are drawn, but only some are sent to Jesus to be raised however I don’t see any reason why the drawing, coming to Jesus, and raising would be talking about a different group of people. The text just doesn’t suggest it. But anyway, I’m not sure what other explanation we could give to this passage but if anyone has another interpretation please let me know!

It appears to me that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" contain a practical contradiction. The T in TULIP states that the reprobate (and even the unregenerate elect) are zealous in their hatred of God. The reprobate completely and totally despise God with their words, thoughts, actions, etc. The P in TULIP states that all of God's elect will be regenerated and will persevere in faith unto death. Now these two points do not seem contradictory in and of themselves, but what of the subject of apostasy? From Biblical texts and our own experience, we come to understand that some people who appear to love God eventually lose interest for one reason or another and fall away from the faith. Jesus even speaks of such people, who accept the gospel with great joy, only to eventually fall back into the world because they get busy and distracted with the cares of daily life. It is a typical Calvinist response to simply say that those people were never saved to begin with. Fair enough, but if they were never saved, then they were never regenerate, and if they were never regenerate then they must experience vicious hatred towards God according to TULIP's T. So what would compel a reprobate hater of God to go to church, read their Bible, pray fervently, ask God for forgiveness of sins, get baptized, etc. These do not seem to be actions of people who despise God. Why would a reprobate man experience joy upon hearing the gospel, as Jesus plainly stated? To Calvin's credit, he attempted to plug this hole by coming up with a doctrine called evanescent grace. Roughly speaking, God in his good pleasure, actively causes a deception to fall upon some reprobate men, which gives them a fleeting desire to worship him and follow Christ. However, this false faith is never the 'real deal' and at the appointed time, God removes the illusion and leaves the man in a worse state than he began. This gives God all the more justification to judge the man to death and condemnation. Understandably, Calvinists do not appear to have endeared themselves to this doctrine. I'd venture to say that many Calvinists have never ever heard of it. But if a Calvinist does not subscribe to evanescent grace, then there must be some other explanation as to what would compel a God-hating reprobate to praise the name of Jesus Christ, even if only for a limited period of time. What explanations, other than evanescent grace, have Calvinists posited to solve this seeming contradiction in their theology? > Our natural, fallen inner disposition is to hate the God of the Bible – the true and living God who created us – and to replace Him with gods (or “concepts of god”) more to our liking. -- http://lakeopc.net/2017/calvinism-101-total-depravity/ > > Total Depravity means that every sinner is possessed with a nature, inherited from Adam's fall, that is completely hostile toward God. We were all born with a "positive" aversion to God and His authority. By nature, every sinner wants "his own way." Romans 8:7 makes this fact very clear. "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." -- https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-total-depravity > > But a man who is totally depraved can not will to be saved. He hates God and wants nothing to do with Christ's death. So it must not be said that Christ died for all men. -- http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html

This question is addressed to those who believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity. In Exodus 10:3 God asks the Pharaoh for how long will he remain proud. Why does God ask such a question if the Pharaoh can't repent? And why does God tell all people to repent/or to not sin if they don't have the choice to do so? It's like telling a blind person to see. > "So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me." ([Exodus 10:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+10%3A3&version=NIV) (NIV))

I had someone ask me to show Scripture that says people can't stop sinning. I had a hard time locating one. What passage(s), if any, support this idea?

I've just read from this link , an explanation by John Piper : > Nobody is in hell that doesn't deserve to be there
and
> isn't in active rebellion to God Because my own interpretation that Total Depravity means:
Before the creation, after knowing that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit, in God's point of view : *none deserve to be in heaven - everybody deserve to be in hell even if there is no active rebellion to Me yet (Adam and Eve has not eat the fruit yet or the generation to come die as a baby) *... Then it made me wonder, why later on God change His mind into *"not everybody deserve to be in hell - some deserve to be in heaven"*, hence the Predestination/Election ? If I myself try to answer :
Because God is sovereign
So He is free to change His mind anytime He will. But that leads me to conclude :
Then it's possible that to the one whom He already elected to deserve Heaven, later on He put him/her back to deserve hell. (Which I don't think this is what the Calvinist view). Assuming my interpretation of Total Depravity is correct, so my question is : why later on God change His mind into *"not everybody deserve to be in hell - some deserve to be in heaven"* ?

The doctrine of Total Depravity is a reformed doctrine that teaches that man is wholly incapable of having acts or will that is holy or pleasing to God. According to Calvin and modern reformed denominations, how does this doctrine result in assurance of faith in the heart of the Christian?

Upon a cursory examination, both the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity seem to say that mankind is by default separated from God. What is an overview of how these doctrines are alike and how they differ?

**Question:** Does God, according to Calvinism, command people *He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so* to repent and believe in Christ *or be damned?*1, 2 And if so, why? --- Scriptures such as as 1 Corinthians 10:13 come to mind: >(NASB) No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. The converse of which means God would be *unjust* to tempt (or let suffer temptation rather: Jas 1:13) and *not* give means of escape. Thanks in advance. --- 1 By 'choice' I don't mean a 'creaturely will' as James White puts it, but a will that can choose salvation or damnation with the help of God post Fall (in the sense of refusing salvation in the case of damnation; and in the sense of accepting Christ and all that means in the case of salvation). I specify this as a 'creaturely will' which God *invented to specifically not choose* salvation does not meet the definition of 'was given the choice to be saved,' since such a choice was never even theoretically possible. Choice is here assumed to mean there is more than one *really possible* outcome (else choice is defined as 'you are free to do exactly what I tell you and nothing else.' 2 By 'ability' I mean the real and not merely theoretical capacity and power to do or perform some thing.

Why do Eastern-Orthodox reject the doctrine of total depravity ? Considering evidence like, Matthew 7:11 , Romans 3:10-20 .

How does one reconcile the idea in modern democracy that every person will be judged purely based on their own actions, with the doctrine of the belief in the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of Man? This is especially relevant with respect to people who lived before the advent of Christianity, where there are no external factors such as the belief in a sacrifical crucifixion to "restore the balance", so to speak (unless a kind of retroactive effect of this on these people is believed in, violating causality). It is clear that the two principles are logically incompatible with each other, as evidenced by the dogma of [total depravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) telling us, even in its [highly softened Roman Catholic form](http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html) , that man cannot "be justified before God by his own works, …without the grace of God through Jesus Christ". On the other hand, the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) , arguably the foundational document of modern democracy, in Article 11, states that > 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. > > 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. If it is in fact the case that they cannot be reconciled within the same logically consistent system, in what ways and domains is the subsequent [doublethink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink) applied?

I understand the reformed doctrine of total depravity to be that the human nature is such that it is utterly unable to choose to follow God. Another way I've heard it put is that men are by nature inclined to reject God. Now, I also understand that Christ took on a human nature at the Incarnation. He assumed the same human nature we have, thus He is rightfully called the one mediator between God and man. How do Calvinists reconcile the fact that Christ has a complete human nature while they teach that this human nature is at odds with God?

Are we "basically sinful" or "basically good" (are we born fundamentally sinful, or are we born holy but then "fall to temptation?). What I really want are the names of the doctrines associated with that age-old question - not the answers themselves. I seem to think that it's a "Lutheran vs Methodist" argument, am I right? (But... They seem to focus more on day-to-day living, not the "born sinful" part).

I'm quite sure I understand the concept of Total Depravity , but I'm not sure it's viewed exactly the same in different doctrinal frameworks that support it. I've spent a lot of time among Lutherans, and while I'm sure they support Total Depravity, they usually rather talk about *Original Sin*. Is this because *Total Depravity* as a term originates in Calvinism? I came upon a table comparing the Lutheran, Calvinist and Arminian ideas of Total Depravity , but I don't quite understand it. Can you explain the main differences in the three views to me?

First I thought that there is no difference between OS (Original Sin) and TD (Total Depravity) in the Calvinist pov. This is what I first thought : (OS = TD)
*Cain/Abel/Seth (and their next generation including us and the future babies) are born spiritually dead.* But today I read this from this link : > The unregenerate (unsaved) **man is dead in his sins**. Assuming the word "dead" from the sentence above is "spiritually-dead" - it leads me to think that the sentence means :
*spiritually-dead is the result of a person's sin, spiritually-dead is not the result of Adam's sin*. So, a newly born baby is not spiritually-dead. The other source says : > We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. > —R.C. Sproul From the sentence above leads me to think that it means :
*a person sin because a newly born baby is a sinner.* So the question is : - A person is spiritually-dead WHEN :

• A. he/she is born sinner ? or
• B. he/she did sin ?

To be honest, this is quite confusing to me. If I choose A ....
A newly born baby is a sinner. A sinner is a spiritually-dead person. So, a baby is a sinner at the same time a baby is a spiritually-dead person. But I think this choice negates the sentence in the first quote. Assuming that my interpretation of the word "dead" = "dead spiritually" is correct, I thought the first quote say that *a person is spiritually-dead when after he/she did sin* ---> This leads to the next conclusion which is : *a newly baby born is not spiritually-dead. A newly baby born is not a sinner*. Later when a baby become a toddler and do a sin, that's not because before hand this toddler was born a sinner. Choosing A is not "agree" with the first quote. And from the second quote say that *a person did sin because he/she is a sinner*. If my interpretation from the second quote is correct which is : *a person did sin because he/she was born a sinner*. Then this second quote negates the first quote. A person is spiritually-dead NOT because he/she did sin (as the first quote mentioned) but because he/she was born a sinner (as the second quote mentioned). Choosing A is "agree" with the second quote. On the other hand, if I choose B...
I think this choice is "agree" with the first quote. But this choice is not "agree" with the second quote. If I "manipulate" it to become something like this :
*a person did sin because he/she was born a sinner BUT he/she was NOT born spiritually-dead* Then it raise another question :
*How come a sinner is not spiritually-dead ? Isn't it because a person is spiritually-dead that's why he/she did sin ?* ---------- Back to my original question.... so... - A person is spiritually-dead WHEN :

• A. he/she is born sinner ? (second quote)
• B. he/she did sin ? (first quote)

In 2012, Calvinist pastor [Tullian Tchividjian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullian_Tchividjian) wrote an article, ["Are Christians Totally Depraved?"](http://www.christianpost.com/news/are-christians-totally-depraved-68622/) , in which he applied the language of *total depravity* to both non-Christians and Christians. He argued that the phrase, "as understood and articulated by theologians for centuries, [...] means more than one thing" – both having "no spiritual capacity to incline ourselves Godward" (as non-Christians) and "sin corrupt[ing] us in the 'totality' of our being" (as Christians). Is this the typical understanding of the doctrine of *total depravity* in Reformed theology?