The Total Depravity
of Calvinism
One of the Calvinist
doctrines I find most opposed to the clear language and teachings of the
Scriptures is the "Total Depravity" of man. The Calvinist belief that
unregenerate man is "utterly helpless and spiritually destitute apart from
divine intervention in his heart and mind" is simply unsupportable,
Biblically, and I intend to demonstrate this to be the case in this article.
To begin, it is advantageous to consider the actual teachings and propositions
of John Calvin himself, the originator of the doctrine of "Total
Depravity" in its formalized, codified form.
(Man's natural endowments not wholly extinguished: the understanding, 12-17)
12. Supernatural gifts destroyed; natural gifts corrupted; but enough of reason
remains to distinguish man from brute beasts
I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the
writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his
supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith
and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of
heavenly life and everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to
God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to the
hope of eternal salvation. Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the
Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by
which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely
destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is
all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it
not;" these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted
and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is
a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with
intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness
that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.
In like manner, the will, because inseparable from the nature of man, did not
perish, but was so enslaved by depraved lusts as to be incapable of one
righteous desire. The definition now given is complete, but there are several
points which require to be explained. (Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book II, Chapter 2)
Typically, as can be seen above, Calvin relies heavily on the thinking of the ECFs, and their theorizing concerning man's "fallen
state". John 1:5, the one verse cited by Calvin in the development of his
ideas, is ripped out of its context, and made to mean something other than its
originally intended, contextually-established interpretation. The
"light" shone in WHICH "darkness". It was the
"light" of WHICH "men"? John 1 deserves better, more
careful treatment than this.
In John 1:10,11 we read the following: "10 He
was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the
world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own
did not receive Him."
We find strong, clear evidence of rhetorical parallelism in the verses, above.
John essentially equates "the world" with "His own",
establishing his usage of "world" as a reference to the Old Covenant
"world" of "God's own People". Tracing this contextual
usage in reverse, we find that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word
was with God and the Word WAS God" does NOT necessarily refer to the
Genesis account of God's creation of the physical planet, universe and natural
system of things. In all probability, in fact, it refers to the creation of the
Old Covenant "world" at
It can be seen, therefore, that John Calvin has launched his ideas on
exegetically shaky ground.
Earlier in his treatment of this issue, Calvin makes these statements:
Having seen that the dominion of sin, ever since the first man was brought
under it, not only extends to the whole race, but has complete possession of
every soul, it now remains to consider more closely, whether from the period of
being thus enslaved, we have been deprived of all liberty; and if any portion
still remains, how far its power extends. In order to facilitate the answer to this questions it may be proper in passing to point out the
course which our inquiry ought to take. The best method of avoiding error is to
consider the dangers which beset us on either side. (1) Man being devoid of all
uprightness, immediately takes occasion from the fact to indulge in sloth, and
having no ability in himself for the study of
righteousness, treats the whole subject as if he had no concern in it. (2) On
the other hand, man cannot arrogate any thing, however minute, to himself,
without robbing God of his honor, and through rash
confidence subjecting himself to a fall.
To keep free of both these rocks, our proper course will be, first, to show
that man has no remaining good in himself, and is beset on every side by the
most miserable destitution; and then teach him to aspire to the goodness of
which he is devoid, and the liberty of which he has been deprived: thus giving
him a stronger stimulus to exertion than he could have if he imagined himself
possessed of the highest virtue. How necessary the latter point is, everybody
sees. As to the former, several seem to entertain more doubt than they ought.
For it being admitted as incontrovertible that man is not to be denied any
thing that is truly his own, it ought also to be admitted, that he is to be
deprived of every thing like false boasting. If man had no title to glory in
himself, when, by the kindness of his Maker, he was distinguished by the
noblest ornaments, how much ought he to be humbled now, when his ingratitude
has thrust him down from the highest glory to extreme ignominy? At the time
when he was raised to the highest pinnacle of honor,
all which Scripture attributes to him is, that he was created in the image of
God, thereby intimating that the blessings in which his happiness consisted
were not his own, but derived by divine communication. What remains, therefore,
now that man is stripped of all his glory, than to
acknowledge the God for whose kindness he failed to be grateful, when he was
loaded with the riches of his grace? Not having glorified him by the acknowledgement
of his blessings, now, at least, he ought to glorify him by the confession of
his poverty.
In truth, it is no less useful for us to renounce all the praise of wisdom and
virtue, than to aim at the glory of God. Those who invest us with more than we
possess only add sacrilege to our ruin. For when we are taught to contend in
our own strength, what more is done than to lift us up, and then leave us to
lean on a reed which immediately gives way? Indeed, our strength is exaggerated
when it is compared to a reed. All that foolish men invent and prattle on this
subject is mere smoke. Wherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so
often repeats the well-known saying, that free will is more destroyed than
established by its defenders, (August. in Evang.
Joann. Tract. 81.) It was necessary to premise this
much for the sake of some who, when they hear that human virtue is totally
overthrown, in order that the power of God in man may be exalted, conceive an
utter dislike to the whole subject, as if it were perilous, not to say
superfluous, whereas it is manifestly both most necessary and most useful. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II,
Chapter 2)
Calvin's shortcomings involve both a failure to treat the Scriptures directly
with any sense of exegetical, contextual integrity and accuracy coupled with an
obsessive need for unachievable "humility" (humanly speaking) in our
consideration of God and His relationship to man. An individual
who is so focussed on such a need, viewing it as
over-riding all other considerations, has (in all likelihood) issues with
vanity and pride in his own heart and mind. It is highly possible that Calvin
held his own views, beliefs and self in rather high esteem, and realized that
nothing of such a self-opinion would be appropriate in any examination of God's
perfection vs. man's imperfection and limitations. Unfortunately, Calvin's
obsession with the need for "humility" (or at least the sensed need
for the perpetual PORTRAYAL of such an attitude) warped and distorted his
understanding of the Scriptures relevant to this discussion.
Going back to Genesis 4, we find a fascinating discussion between God and Cain
providing us with tremendous insight into the TRUE nature of man's innermost
being.
6 So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your
countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if
you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you
should rule over it." (Gen. 4:6,7)
First of all, note God's rhetorical question in v.6. The correct, intended
response is YES - if you DO WELL (that which is pleasing in God's sight), YOU
WILL BE ACCEPTED BY GOD. Remember, Cain was NOT "spiritually
regenerated" in the New Testament sense of that phrase, at this time. He
was in a "fallen" state, and yet God is communicating with him and
has specific EXPECTATIONS of him, based on certain inherent, created qualities
within his heart, mind and will which were clearly still functional and active.
The final statement to Cain, above, sets Calvin's arguments to rest completely.
It nails the coffin shut on his view of mankind's supposed "total
depravity". Cain had the LEGITIMATE OPTION to "rule over" the
bias toward sin within him. He COULD over-rule his own, sinful tendencies and
still do that which was pleasing to God AUTONOMOUSLY. No other interpretation
of those verses is either tenable or supportable, when the language and context
are given their due weight.
In John 6:28,29 the Jews asked Christ Jesus an
intriguing question, and His response is highly informative.
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works
of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
In effect, the "work of God" was that which the Jews were capable of
"working" IN AND OF THEMSELVES - AUTONOMOUSLY. Christ's words
actually indicate that this "work of God" (faith in Christ Jesus) did
not have its SOURCE in God, but rather was the ONLY "work" they were
capable of that would meet with His approval. In other words - they were
capable of exercising SAVING FAITH, autonomously.
Romans 10:9-17 provides us with a detailed description of the mechanics of
saving faith.
"9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus
and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be
saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness,
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For
the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over
all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of
the Lord shall be saved." 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they
have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not
heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach
unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of
those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad
tidings of good things!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Note v.17 in particular. NOWHERE in this description of the process of the
awakening of saving faith within one's heart and mind is there ANY indication
that GOD confers saving faith through the sovereign, supernatural imposition of
it upon the individual's heart and mind. NOWHERE do we see any evidence of this
activity on God's part WHATSOEVER.
Again, Calvin's doctrine falls demonstrably short of
the Truth. Calvin and the exegetes who adhere to his
views, consistently misappropriate Biblical texts to suit their predetermined
conclusions, utterly ignoring the clear context.
John G. Reisinger exemplifies this approach rather
well.
What does the phrase "total depravity" mean? I. Negative. Let us note what we do NOT mean by "total depravity." A. We do not mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong. B. Total depravity does not mean that every sinner is devoid of all the qualities that are both pleasing to men and useful to society when those qualities are judged only by a human standard. C. We are not saying that every sinner is prone to every form of sin. D. We do not mean that every sinner is as intense as he can be in his sin. II. Positive. What we DO mean by "total depravity." What DOES the Bible itself teach? A. Every sinner, including you and me, is destitute of, or without, that love to God which constitutes the fundamental and all-inclusive demand of God's law. B. Total depravity means that every sinner is guilty of elevating some lower affection or desire above regard for God, His Law and the Gospel. C. That "something else" that all men love is an idol called "self" or "me." D. Every sinner is possessed with a nature, inherited from Adam's fall, that is completely hostile toward God. E. By total depravity, we mean that every part of man's being and nature has been affected by sin. F. Man has a nature that will not permit him to choose God or righteousness.
Note that
point F in particular directly contradicts the Scriptures I have cited, above.
For these points, Reisinger provides no textual
support. Reisinger goes on to amplify upon these
points as follows:
Doctor Bible is going to examine seven individual faculties of the sinner. In
each case the result will show total inability. Here are seven things that God
says a sinner cannot do. It is essential that we see that the Holy Spirit uses
the word "cannot" in all seven instances. To say, "Well, the
sinner really can do these things if he only wants to," is to not only
misunderstand the Bible, it is to flat out contradict
it! As we shall see later, man's "will not," or his refusal to repent
and believe the gospel, is the direct effect of the "cannot" of total
depravity. More about this in a moment.
First, the man is totally BLIND.
A lost man CANNOT see! "I tell you the truth, no
one CAN SEE the
Reisinger universalizes John 3:3 with no
attention given to the fact that this private discussion between Christ and
Nicodemus was focused exclusively on the spiritual
economy of the Isralite "world" of THAT
day. IF there is any, secondary application of this principle of
"seeing" the Kingdom BEYOND the pre-AD 70 era and spiritual
experience, it must be established through parallel Scriptures elsewhere
verifying this fact, through clear, relevance and application to OUR era
signified within their immediate contexts. The JEWS were unable to RECOGNIZE
the Truth of the gospel in Christ Jesus and His Kingdom apart from spiritual
rebirth. Is that true for mankind as a whole? That is an open question if we
rely solely upon John 3:3.
Second, the man is mentally deranged.
He CANNOT UNDERSTAND a single thing that is spiritual. "But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him: neither CAN he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned" (I Cor
Note Reisinger's abuse of the phrase "natural
man", failing to address Paul's usage of that terminology, and its TRUE,
First Century significance.
In Romans 11, Paul uses the term "natural" to refer to the
"elect Jews/Israelites" who were grafted OUT of the "vine".
The emphasis in 1Cor. 2:6-16 is upon the "age" associated with the
Old Covenant "world". Within THAT "age" and
"world", the "natural man" was the Israelite/Jew who had
not yet responded in faith to the gospel of Christ Jesus and remained uniquely
"darkened", spiritually, in adherence to the Mosaic Law alone.
To attempt to make a case for the "mental derangement" of
unregenerate humanity on the basis of 1Cor.
Third, the man is stone deaf. He CANNOT HEAR any spiritual truth. This is
verdict of Christ Himself. "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word" (John
Reisinger jumps from the application of
Christ's words to the JEWS, above, to a UNIVERSAL APPLICATION of His words to
ALL OF HUMANITY, WITHOUT contextual justification or warrant of any kind
whatsoever. Once again, Reisinger typifies the
Calvinist approach to the Word of God.
Fourth, the man is completely powerless. He CANNOT even want to receive
spiritual help. A comparison of two verses of Scripture will establish this
awful fact. The first verse shows us why a lost sinner cannot receive truth and
grace. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth
him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you. (John 14:17)
John
I could go on and on evaluating text after text, comparing Scripture with
Scripture and consistently finding the Calvinist case falling short of an
accurate exegetical treatment of those Scriptures.
Full Preterism dictates that we address both the TEXTUAL and HISTORICAL
contexts of any Scripture we endeavor to analyze in
order to determine its ORIGINALLY INTENDED meaning. Calvin and those who have
followed in his footsteps interpretively, have
mistreated and misapplied the Word of God, thereby misdiagnosing the human
condition apart from God.
I find that unregenerate, non-Covenantal man is FULLY CAPABLE of acknowledging
God's Truth as valid and desirable, APART from any sovereign imposition of
enlightenment and "saving faith" upon that "fallen"
individual's heart and mind. Man has the inherent, CREATED CAPACITY to respond
favorably to God's requirements and Truth AUTONOMOUSLY. Hence,
the name for my particular soteriological position -
AUTONOMISM. I find the Scriptures fully in support of this view, except
where the uniquely "darkened" spiritual state of the pre-AD 70
Israelites/Jews was in view.
From my own, personal experience furthermore, I find that non-Covenantal people
show an interest in spiritual things and truths related to God the Creator and
this realm of reality He has created, provided those things and ideas have some
rational, objective basis for them. For the most part, people turn to mysticism
and denial of a rational framework for spiritual things due to disillusionment
over the misapplication and misinterpretation of the Truth so characteristic of
mainstream, futurist Churchianity.
As Preterists, let us set a much higher standard than the Calvinists and
futurists have done, by choosing to remain rigorously contextual in our
handling of the Word of God, as it shapes our beliefs in ALL areas.
Serving the Truth,
John McPherson
as of 1-25-2005