Born Bad
The Problem of Total Depravity
James Patrick Holding
Calvinism forms the
underpinning of much Protestant thought today, and a keystone for the rest of
Calvinism's Five Points is the very first, the T in TULIP: Total Depravity. What
is the exact meaning of this doctrine? Here are the points it generally offers,
which one will find repeated in various forms throughout works in favor of
TULIP:
- Sin corrupts the whole person -- emotions, will, and
intellect.
- Although this is so, we are not as bad as we could be;
we could be worse. We are, as Palmer puts it, not as intensively
evil as possible; but we are as extensively evil as possible.
[Palm.5P, 9] For example, while we as individuals may lie and cheat, this
does not mean that we will go as far as murder.
- We are incapable of a truly good act of our own selves.
Any good deeds we do (outside of Christ) is merely a "relative"
good deed. A truly good deed is done for the glory of God; unbelievers are
incapable of this.
- The supreme point following from these three: We are
unable of ourselves to turn to Christ to be saved.
Since I have began this
study, I have now concluded (where previously I was uncommitted) all 4 of these
points are true according to Scripture -- and therefore, I affirm that the T in
TULIP is valid. However, I must qualify by saying that while it is valid, it is
not supported by as many Scriptures as some are wont to think. Originally this
essay was to explore the doctrine as expressed in the epistalory literature, but
since it seems that "T" is clearly affirmed (in the first verse to be
examined below) I see no need, at present, to proceed further. One may as well
ask whether the Bible teaches that "God so loved the world..."
|
Born Bad: Cites Used to Support the Doctrine of
Total Depravity
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except
the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last
day.
I will begin, therefore, with the verse that clearly does
teach total depravity. Palmer [Palm.5P, 16] tells us, "Here is total
depravity: man cannot choose Jesus. He cannot even take the first step to go to
Jesus, unless the Father draws him." This is indeed total depravity, but
there is a factor involved that looks to shift the matter back to individual
choice. Jesus goes on to say in John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from
the earth, will draw all men unto me." The Greek word behind
"draw" in the two verses is the same. Note the connotation that this
word can have:
Acts 16:19 And when her masters saw that
the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew
them into the marketplace unto the rulers...
James 2:6 But ye have despised the poor.
Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
This word has the connotation of being brought somewhere by
force if needed, and against the wishes of the "draw-ee." This verse
does indeed teach the doctrine clearly. But once John 12:32 is thrown into the
mix, something is indicated which may throw the matter back into human hands --
at God's sovereign directive and because of His actions. How are men drawn onto
Christ? We know and all agree that the Holy Spirit is the "drawer" on
men. But Jesus says that all men will be drawn unto him. So what does
this lead to? A logical syllogism: All men are drawn to Christ. The Holy Spirit
works this function in all men. But clearly not all become Christians, and
these verses only say that one cannot make the choice without the drawing
first. (Even Yarborough, writing in favor of Calvinism in Still Sovereign,
admits that this can refer to a "more general attraction that, say,
renders persons accountable but not yet regenerate in other" and tries to
make "all men" mean "all elect men" [as below] with
no justification other than a pre-conceived application of Calvinism.)
Therefore, practically speaking, while we absolutely must have God's prodding
to come to Him, we are all getting that prodding -- just like you can't decide
on a path without information on the path first. Geisler [Geis.CBF, 6], citing
Sproul, observes that the question now is whether God gives the ability to come
to Him to all men, and we discuss that more here. In the meantime, here are
other passages often used to prop up the T petal. (I should note one response
to this verse, which says that "all men" means "men from all
nations" rather than literally "all men" -- this seems an all
too obvious "dodge" to save the doctrine of irresistible grace; in
the previous verse Jesus speaks of judgment of the kosmos and the prince
of the kosmos. It is the burden of the Calvinist to prove that "all
men" [in fact, only "all" is actually in the text;
"men" is implied] means "men from all nations" or
"elect men".)
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I
unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my
Father.
I would also note as well that John 6:65, which I previously
included in the above, does not say that God enables people to believe -- I
think that that is a Calvinist reading of the verse. Indeed the connection
between belief and the Father's permission is not specified -- it's just as
well to say that the Father has to act as an access-granter because people can
and will join the movement under false pretenses that no man can discern, which
would make much better sense under the client-patron relationship
understanding.
Genesis 6:5 And God saw
that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
No case for total depravity starts, so it seems, without
this verse -- and it is here that I begin with a little groundwork.
Regular readers of this page know that I do not offer much
solace for various skeptics and critics of the Bible who remove verses from
their social, literary, or historical contexts in order to prove a point. But
this does not mean that Christians are clear to make the same kinds of mistakes
in interpretation. Critics are fond of quoting a verse shortly after this one,
Genesis 6:9, which speaks of Noah being "perfect" and asking if this
does not contradict statements elsewhere that all men sin. They are of course
wrong in their understanding of this verse, as we have shown elsewhere, and in
their understanding of similar verses like Job 1:1 and Luke 1:6 (see the same
link) that describe various men as perfect, righteous, or blameless. I have
answered these critics by noting that typically ANE literature used
exaggeration for effect. Job, Noah and others were comparatively
righteous, and are described as completely so for comparative effect.
I can honestly interpret Genesis 6:5 under no different
principles. This is undoubtedly exaggeration for effect, for of course one
cannot literally have thoughts of the heart that are continually evil (for we
must all sleep sometime!); certainly the hearts of these antediluvians were
wicked and depraved, but whether this means that they were depraved to the
extent that total depravity requires simply cannot be determined from this
verse -- much less can it be said that this automatically applies to all
men throughout history, although it offers persuasive evidence that it is so.
Nor does this verse say anything either way about whether men were unable
to behave otherwise.
Genesis 8:21 And the
LORD smelled a sweet Savoir; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again
curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is
evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as
I have done.
This verse is also appealed to as showing that "man's
depravity is not merely something that belongs to his maturity but
characterizes his life from its beginning." [Camm.SBG, 35] And with this
we do agree; however, this still does not address whether or not men can
change or simply won't.
1 Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee,
(for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and
deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land
of the enemy, far or near...
The issue is once again the same: no one doubts that all men
sin, but under what context of our "can't or don't" distinction? This
verse is silent upon the subject.
Job 15:14-16 What is
man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should
be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are
not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which
drinketh iniquity like water?
This passage, we are told, "reminds us that man's wickedness
is as natural to him and as much a part of his life as drinking water."
[Camm.SBG, 36] But again, like our other passages so far, it is silent on the
important can't or don't" distinction. (It should be recalled, moreover,
that this is said by Job's friend Eliphaz in the context of trying to convince
Job that he did something to deserve his punishment!)
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
This will get old fast, but my answer (as it was
elsewhere on this verse) is the
same. This verse offers a standard Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration for the
purpose of expressing a point: That we're sinners and we express it from even
the youngest age; in this case, David expressing the utter depth of his own
sin, in light of events with Bathsheba. While I in no way mean to imply that
our sin is not serious or extensive, it is no more legitimate for the
Calvinist to use this verse as they do than it is for the skeptics, and the
verse in no way says that we can't make a right choice.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart
is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
And it is still old, isn't it? As we know, Jeremiah is
known for his
exaggerations for the sake of emphasis, as is quite the norm in an oral
culture; moreover, this verse has the structure of a
proverbial saying and should therefore be
read in that light. It cannot carry the absolute sense that a Calvinistic
argument requires. (This also applies to two other verses from Jeremiah that
have been used [Jer. 4:22, 13:23].)
One of the first NT verses used in this area is Matthew
7:16-20, a passage we have addressed relative to this subject in answering
Edmund Cohen. Here I will merely repeat the same points offered previously.
By their fruit you will
recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A
good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every
tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus,
by their fruit you will recognize them.
I can see where Calvinists might think that this supports a
certain view of predetermination and of the nature of man as totally depraved
and unable to come to saving knowledge without help. But read with a nuanced
eye, what I assume here to be a Calvinist interpretation is really rather an
overreading. Trees do not literally bear "good" and "evil"
fruit -- fruit has no moral compunction. Moreover, as an agricultural society
would know, this is a general principle and not a total absolute. The
"good" tree will now and then produce an "evil" fruit; and
now and then also does the "evil" tree make edible and wholesome
produce, although that is very rare. But as a whole a tree will tend to
produce fruit in line with the state of the main tree itself. It is simply
reading too much into this parable (which for effectiveness in oral
transmission, we would expect, in societal context, to be expressed in absolute
terms) to find in it a black-and-white delineation of the full nature of man.
The upshot of this for any sort of Calvinist interpretation
is that, from this verse, it is not necessarily, utterly true that men
cannot come to God without assistance from the Holy Spirit, although as I have
initially argued, it appears that the Spirit works upon the hearts of all men
to some extent at all times, so that the Calvinist assumption of this passage
misses the point. And as it happens, this is more or less how most of the rest
of the verses we will examine from the Gospels can be looked at as well.
Matthew 13:14 And in
them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive:
This verse offers the text of Isaiah 6:9-10 as being
fulfilled in the actions and response of Jesus' hearers, in this case, the
Pharisees. It is used as a pointer for total depravity, and is said to explain
"why some theologians and Bible students can spend most of their lives
studying the Bible and yet reject Jesus Christ as their God, Lord, and Savior.
The cause of rejection is not in the clear testimony of God's Word. Rather, it
is in the blindness, darkness, and hardness of their hearts. If a man is not
regenerated, he cannot understand." [Palm.5P, 15-16] With the first half
of this assertion we agree; but from whence is the conclusion drawn for the
second half? The progression of thought has gone from "don't" to
"can't" with no justification. Moreover, that these words are
addressed to one particular group of people (the Pharisees) as an indication of
fulfillment of a specific verse that predicts hardness of heart from one group
of people, it is illicit to universalize from it. (The same may also be
said of other verses commonly used this way, John 1:11, 8:43, and 12:37-9.)
Furthermore, Jesus goes on to say that there were those who did see and hear
(vv. 16-17). But the Calvinist view will point to some of our next verses as an
answer to this.
John 3:3 Jesus answered
and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,
he cannot see the
Palmer [Palm.5P, 17] points to this verse and argues:
A baby never desires or decides to be
born. He never contributes an iota to his own birth. In the whole process from
conception through birth, he is completely passive and totally unable to
control his birth. In a similar fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step
toward his rebirth.
Though this relates to the "U" aspect of TULIP as
well as "T", let's consider it now. I asked here at one point whether
Palmer is getting his biological facts straight; I have never understood that a
baby is a totally passive bystander in the birth process, but rather, does a
little struggling of its own instinctually, which would rather poke a hole in
Palmer's analogy, since no one thinks instincts have anything to do with
conversion. As it turns out, a science-minded reader has told me that, indeed,
Palmer is wrong: A baby even determines when it will be born, for it
secretes a hormone that induces labor.
But I rather think the analogy Palmer draws is stretched
anyway. The metaphor of new birth is appropriate; how else would the idea of a
new creation be better expressed? In order for this argument to work, Palmer
has to show that there was no better analogy available which would have
illustrated both a new creation and a active choice behind the matter.
Otherwise, he is simply stretching the analogy for his own purposes -- and we
may next ask questions like, "What is conception analogous to?" !
John 15:4-5 Abide in me,
and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the
vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the
branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Calvinists take this verse as an indication of "total
inability" [Palm.5P, 15] to do anything good, including choose Christ. But
I find here the same mistake I have once found made by C. Dennis McKinsey, who
argued against salvation by grace by saying that the "act of accepting by
faith is a work itself." But acts of the will and mind were not
considered "works" in this time. The Greek word indicates physical
labor or toil, not an intellectual decision. I cannot give McKinsey credence,
and can no more fairly grant it to the Calvinist in this context. (However,
even if intellectual decision were included, the indication would be no more
than what is indicated in our syllogism above; see moreover on the meaning of
"faith",
here.)
Acts 16:14 And a certain
woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto
the things which were spoken of Paul.
Palmer tells us of
|
Conclusion
After all of
this criticism of those who favor the doctrine of total depravity, I would
remind the reader that I have indeed come to the conclusion that it is
Scriptural -- just not found clearly in a majority of verses usually cited in
favor of it. Those verses are perhaps persuasion, but only the one in John 6
that we began with, of those we have examined, is clear proof.
|
Sources
-
Camm.SBG --
Cammenga, Ronald and Ronald Hanko. Saved by Grace.
-
Geis.CBF --
Geisler,
-
Palm.5P --
Palmer, Edwin H. The Five Points of Calvinism.