I've said before that I don't like the common acronym, "TULIP," not because I disagree with the principles, but because the chosen memory tool misrepresents the principles. So, I'm going to look at "T" -- Total Depravity -- with the aim of eliminating the misconceptions and showing in Scripture what it really is. (Please note: I won't be presenting this as philosophy or fine arguments. I'm not using Calvin or anyone else. My source document is the Bible.)
"Total Depravity" suggests that Man (I suppose, in today's world, I have to explain that "Man" is not male, but "mankind," "humanity," the human race) is depraved, totally depraved, as bad as he/she can possibly be. That would (obviously) be a mistake. The principle is not that we are as bad as we possibly can be, but that sin has affected us to the very core. There is no part of us that is not touched. And it's a bigger problem than we imagine. Maybe "Radical Depravity" is better.
The Bible explains that God made humans perfect (Gen 1:31). That didn't change until Genesis 3, when the serpent tempted Eve and the couple leapt into sin. That fall affected all of Adam's race (Rom 5:12). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). If that's not bad enough, the ramifications of this condition are larger than we think. Scripture says we are sinners from birth. David cried, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5). Elsewhere he says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psa 58:3). That is, we aren't just sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. God said, "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). We understand that we're all sinners, but Scripture says, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12). And, if you can believe it, it gets worse. Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). That's a "cannot." Natural man lacks the capacity to understand the things of God. Why? Natural man is dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3). Instead, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). We're not as bad as we could be, but we're in a hopeless condition of sin that permeates everything.
That is the concept of "Total Depravity." It's not that we're really, really bad people. It's that we're sinners at the core and neither capable of understanding the things of the Spirit or pleasing God. Until God intervenes, we are without hope (Eph 2:12). We've all heard the calls. We're all encouraged to choose Christ. What we fail to grasp is, left to our own devices, it cannot happen. We are a rebellious people, dead in sin, without the capacity to even understand. If Someone supernatural does not do something -- something radical -- it's a story with a dreadful ending. Sugar-coating or covering up the truth of human depravity only covers the real problem. But ... obviously ... I'm going to have to continue this series to offer a solution ... God's solution.
________
For more Scripture on this, I offer John 1:12-13; John 3:5-7; John 6:63-65; 1 Peter 4:6; Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom 8:7-8. Feel free to find more.
13 comments:
I also agree with the principles outlined in TULIP, but believe that they are poorly stated. As you point out Total Depravity is not what some would suggest. Good stuff.
Like most mnemonics, it is only helpful as a memory device if you know what it actually means. I'm pretty sure most of them fall apart if you only remember the device and not what the device reminds you of.
Total Depravity also doesn't say everything people do is completely bad, from the perspective of other people. People do altruistic and humanitarian acts all the time. However, according to the Bible, no good work is capable of salvation, nor is it an actually good work if it isn't done to the glory of God.
I think that you are right to take a non-philosophical approach to this doctrine, since, clearly, the topic of “man’s nature and abilities” can be argued, debated, and discussed ad nauseum from a man-centered point of view--as it has been/is being done by too many. It is only natural for man to defend himself in this area (i.e. argue with God) and to resort to all kinds of humanistic interpretations, justifications, and resolutions. (I am sure these arguments are one way that Satan devised to distract and preoccupy men and women’s minds.) What matters indeed is, what does the Bible teach, i.e. what does God want us to know about our condition? and, as per your final thought, what is God’s solution to our dilemma? I look forward to that.
I agree with you that “radical depravity” is better than “total depravity.” I think that “radical corruption” is an even better picture of the degenerate core nature of man. As you point out, this teaching is not saying that man does no good things but that, following the Fall, his natural (i.e. innate) inclination is towards sin and not towards the things of God. Essentially, our sinful natures rule our hearts, and submitting to God is contrary to our selfish wills, so we naturally resist that option. As R.C. Sproul states it, “By nature, we are slaves to sin….we sin precisely because we want to sin.” Of course, the apostle Paul tells us that many times. Also, Joh. 3:19-20 speaks of man’s love for the darkness rather than the light, which exposes his evil works. Praise God, the Light of the world has come to us (Joh. 8:12)!
And there you go, folks. Lorna supplied a few more references on the topic. There are a LOT of them in Scripture.
Excellent point. The good we do can only be measured in relation to the behavior of other people, not in relation to YHWH or an objective standard. Likewise, our good actions, may or may not be an accurate measurement of how good we are as a person. We all see people do good things, and do so ourselves, driven by less than good motivations.
I like substituting corruption for depravity. Depravity seems to indicate a choice that one makes, while corruption seems to indicate a condition or state of being.
I concur that this is a crucial point. In his book, R.C. Sproul says this about “civil virtue” (which would include good deeds performed by even unbelievers): “When God evaluates the actions of people, he considers not only the outward deeds in and of themselves, but also the motives behind these acts. The supreme motive required of everything we do is the love of God. A deed that outwardly conforms to God’s law but proceeds from a heart alienated from God is not deemed by God a good deed. The whole action, including the inclinations of the doer’s heart, is brought under the scrutiny of God and found wanting.” [What Is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics, p. 120, emphasis added] This confirms to me that the natural man cannot please God--even by being “good”--as he is still God’s enemy (Rom. 8:7-8).
Lorna, that Sproul quote is great. It does a great job of explaining things.
I thought that, too, Craig. “Depravity” sounds like behavior--activity that one can modify--while “corruption” seems to go deeper--to one’s core nature, which one cannot reform. The actual definitions I found are similar, however, so it might just be semantics.
Craig, I would highly recommend that book, if you haven’t read it already. I read it through carefully again last month and, as Stan continues this series, I am referring back to many points that I highlighted while reading it.
Just to clarify for all: The many Sproul references in my comments on this topic are not meant to augment Stan’s good summaries--just my own understanding and articulation of it.
Lorna, I'm interested in the book but am not seeing the title.
Craig, that’s shown right above in brackets within my comment. It was published in 1997 by Baker Books (and previously published under the title Grace Unknown).
Post a Comment