| << What is an Arminian? | Series Index | Conditional Election >> |
As I said before, the doctrine of Total Depravity is probably the one major point Arminians and Calvinists both agree on the most. Albeit, Calvinists often don't realize this, and think we hold to Semipelagianism, or the belief that man can take the first steps towards salvation. This, however, is not the case Biblically.
Total Depravity is defined as the belief that, "there is nothing in man that has not been infected by the power of sin."1 One must not confuse this with the idea that a person is as depraved, or as evil, as one possibly could be (this would be known as "utter depravity"). However, everything we do apart from God's grace, even what we think are good works, are tainted by sin. Since faith is something that is quantitatively good, it is impossible for one to have faith by oneself.
The strongest Biblical support we find for this doctrine is from Christ's own words. Jesus, speaking to unbelieving Jews, said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44. Notice, one cannot come to Jesus (implied: by belief, see John 3:16, etc.), unless first drawn by God. The conditional clause, "unless the Father draws him" is important, since if this were absolute, no one could ever be saved. Now, a key controversy here is how we should interpret that qualification: does this mean one is irresistibly drawn (literally compelled), such that one who is drawn cannot help but be saved? Or does the drawing refer merely to a grace that comes prior to belief, the effects of which are resistible? This will be addressed later, so the main thing we are interested in now is the inability of a person to come to Jesus apart from God drawing them.
There are some other passages worth looking at, though most don't have the same force as the above. For instance, consider this passage from Romans:
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8:5-8
In context of Romans as a whole, "those who are according to the flesh" refers to unrepentant sinners, while "those who are according to the Spirit" are Christians. We see here that so long as one is set "on the flesh," one is hostile to God, does not subject to His law, nor can it please God. This is the state of the world at large.
You meet him who rejoices in doing righteousness, Who remembers You in Your ways. Behold, You were angry, for we sinned, We continued in them a long time; And shall we be saved? For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. Isaiah 64:5-6.
This is a statement of the state of Israel at the time Isaiah prophesied, but there is a point worth making here. Why is the unrepentant sinner unable to please God? Because so long as one is under sin, one's good deeds are like "filthy rags." Interestingly, Paul makes a point in Romans similar the last statement, that "our iniquities... take us away." Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? Romans 6:16. The unbeliever is enslaved to sin, such that they cannot do good.
Paul, writing to the Ephesian Church, said, And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Ephesians 2:1-2. The use of the term "dead," here, is a strong word! The force cannot be understated, as a dead man cannot by himself make himself alive, so a sinner cannot make himself good. Of course, We must be careful not to overstate this, since the death language is clearly figurative. There are some Calvinists who try to use the "death" and "made alive" language here (Eph. 2:1-7) as though it supports irresistible grace; the question remains whether we can resist being made alive during the process (or, when Jesus calls one out of the tomb like Lazarus, if they cannot simply lay back down and return to death). Ephesians and similar passages don't clearly say either way.
Really, Total Depravity is probably the most important doctrine here, since if it is not true, the Gospel isn't so important. If a person can do good in and of oneself, do we really need Christ to die for our sins? The Gospel message is based on the fact that all of mankind is under sin and in need of a savior.
With that said, there is one more point worth making. Often Calvinists will try to make a case for what is known as Compatibilism based on Total Depravity. (Compatibilism is the belief that one is "free" to do exactly that which one desires. It seeks to reconcile human freedom with determinism.) However, the question then becomes, is it possible for one, while in one's sins, to choose between different sins? Or lesser or greater sins? So long as the Calvinist holds to Total Depravity and not utter depravity, no such case can be made.
It is clear that Total Depravity is Biblical; so clear, that I am sure some of you are smacking yourselves in the forehead in awe that you didn't realize it before (I did, as I shifted from Semipelagianism to a less formulated variation of Arminianism, early in my theological journey). The question is, which becomes the focus of the next two topics, how does God bring people out of that state, and who does He choose to bring.
Published: Array
| << What is an Arminian? | Series Index | Conditional Election >> |
Notes and Citations:
1. Harvey, Van A. "Depravity, Total." A Handbook of Theological Terms. 68. Touchstone. New York. 1997
|
|
|
|