This essay is free for distribution in any manner, with the provision that it remains completely intact, with this notice, the author's name and the full text of the essay.  Any comments are gratefully welcomed.  Copyright 1997.


INTRODUCTION

Sin is never merely a voluntary act of transgression against God and His righteous requirements.  Every such act proceeds from an inner essence that is more firmly entrenched in mankind than the volition itself.  The Biblical testimony is that a sinful act is the expression of a sinful heart.  David exclaimed that he had been a sinner since birth, sinful since the time of his very conception (Psalm 51:5).  The apostle Paul speaks graphically about how sin within him "sprang to life" (Romans 7:9) and went about "seizing the opportunity" (Romans 7:9).   Genesis 8:21 demonstrates that mankind is subject to a persistent tendency to evil inclinations.

Milne (1980, p. 1458) explains that sin must always include the perversity of heart, mind, disposition and will.  Wright (1968, p. 76) notes that man has lost the power to become, and habitually to remain, righteous.  The term used to explain this by medieval theologians was ‘deprivation’, from which ‘depravity’ is obtained.

PRECISE DEFINITION OF DEPRAVITY

Wright (1968, p. 15) laments a perceived lack of careful employment of terminology.   To illustrate his point he refers to contexts in which one may understand "total depravity" to mean that "man has lost all semblance of good in any form, and that each individual sinner is as corrupt as he possibly could be".   He continues, later writing that

[total depravity] was never intended to convey the meaning that man is as bad as he possibly can be, and that every trace of moral rectitude has been lost in fallen man (Wright, 1968, p. 77).

Badham (nd., p. 36) adds

It does not mean that the unregenerate are totally insensitive in the matters of conscience, of right or wrong.  In Romans 2:15 Paul says that Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, so that "their conscience also bears witness . . ."

To counteract such misconceptions, Wright proceeds to define "total depravity" as meaning that sin has influenced every part of human nature, so that there is no part of it that may invariably perform righteous acts or think righteous thoughts.  That is, the "totality" applies to the field of operation, and not to the actual degree of evil in the individual.  Further, such depravity is total because apart from divine aid it is irreversible.

THE EXTENT OF DEPRAVITY

As depravity is total, affecting every aspect and area of man’s being, then man is unable to habitually perform that which is good and well pleasing to God.  All, like sheep, have gone astray and turned to their own way.  There is no-one righteous. (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:10-12).  The apostle Paul detailed the conflict he found inside himself in Romans 7:7-25.  Although he wanted to do good, evil was always there.  He was a prisoner of the law of sin that worked within his body (v. 23).   His sinful nature made him a very slave of sin (v. 25) – his depravity was total.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN

God is utterly separate from sin (Job 34:10; Romans 3:23) and requires holiness of His people – (Leviticus 11:44, 45; I Peter 1:16) - and in fact, without holiness no-one shall see God (Hebrews 12:14).

The word of the Lord came to the prophet Ezekiel, "The soul who sins is the one who will die" (Ezekiel 18:4).  Romans 3:23 explains that all have sinned.   Consequently, all have fallen short of the glory of God.  Romans 5:12 adds that death has came to all mankind – because all have sinned.

Further, God will judge every man according to their deeds, and in an unregenerate and unrepentant state one is merely storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 2:5-6).  This wrath is a threefold death.  Firstly, physical death separates the soul and the body (Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Numbers 16:29).  Secondly, spiritual death separates the soul from God while the body is alive (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:21; Ephesians 2:1, 5)  The natural man is outside of communion with the living God.  He is unable to act and respond spiritually.  He is not able to discern God’s ways or serve Him.   Thirdly, eternal death separates man from God completely and forever, and is what man deserves (Matthew 25:46; Revelation 20:11-15).  If one comes to physical death, while still in a state of spiritual death, then only eternal death can result.

FREE WILL

It is important to consider the notion of free will, for a possible objection to the doctrine of total depravity is that it conflicts with man’s freedom, especially in light of the Biblical teaching that anyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34).   Ryrie (1960, p. 164), for example, implies that total depravity (emphasis his) involves a loss of free will.

Such an objection, however, places an emphasis on man’s limitations, neglecting to realise that all created beings are necessarily limited.  Wright (1968, p. 78) illustrates that angels act ‘freely’, but under a constant law of righteousness - if they had not been ‘free’, none could have fallen.  Nevertheless, the emphasis of Scripture is that man does have a freedom, and this that they may choose Christ.  Further, it is inconsistent to define total depravity as not affecting the whole of any part of man – but simultaneously affecting the whole of the will (thus it is lost).  Rather, the will has been affected by depravity, but it is still present like any other aspect of man.

Wright (1968, p. 78) states that "free will" is a term that is often hastily generalised.  It is a complex issue because the question must be asked whether moral choice is secured in a finite being without granting the possibility of a wrong moral choice, that is, is it actually possible to isolate an act from its historical setting and make it voluntary in the sense of being unrelated to a previous moral condition?   When discussing "free will", it is important to realise that such entails the free expression of an individual at any moment, but that the individual’s nature and history are real and pervasive influences in their choice.

Free will does not contradict depravity in any way.  However, man’s choices will be influenced by such depravity.

There is a more serious way in which this objection may be considered, however.   Extreme Calvinist writer W. E. Best (1992, p. 11) states, "Those who embrace the theory of man’s free will deny depravity. . ."  Such a statement is fallacious, for it may be proven untrue by the existence of but one person who embraces both man’s free will and depravity, such as Wright, or Stern (1992).  The real issue is whether it is valid for one to simultaneously adhere to these notions – which is the case, as explained above.

Best, however, makes a distinction between "free agency" and "free will" (Best, 1992, p. 11).  To him, free will transcends an agent’s ability to act according to their depraved will, and especially assumes an ability in the will of man itself to choose good or evil.  This is contradictory to Best’s view of God’s sovereignty, which is further interrelated with central tenets of Calvinism such as irresistible grace and a limited atonement.

Among Protestants the differences in understanding of the process from a sinful state to full salvation lies primarily in the Reformed and Wesleyan approaches.  The view one takes will be related to their doctrine of depravity.  Calvinists, such as Best, assert that depravity implies a total inability that necessitates a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in order to repent and believe.  Pecota (1994, p. 355) sees this suggesting a process beginning with election, predestination and then foreknowledge, which contrasts the list Paul specifies in Romans 8:28-30.  Further, regeneration must of necessity occur before repentance.  Pecota instead sees depravity as implying that, because man continues to bear the image of God even in a fallen state, one is able to respond to God’s drawing in repentance and faith – giving an order of foreknowledge, election and then predestination.

The former position is not consistent with Scripture and demonstrates a flawed view of sovereignty.  God is a gracious, loving and personal sovereign who experiences no threat to, or diminishing of, His sovereignty if one refuses His gift.

According to Scripture, man is capable of resisting God’s grace.  Through Isaiah, God said "All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people. . . I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen" (Isaiah 65:2, 12).   Stephen accused his hearers of being "stiff-necked people. . . [who] always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51).  Pecota (1994, p. 360) adds

. . . if we cannot resist God’s grace, then nonbelievers will perish, not because they would not respond but because they could not.  God’s grace would not be efficacious for them.

Pecota (1994, p. 360-1) continues,

A God whose love yearns for everyone to come to Him but does not irresistibly compel them to come, and whose heart breaks over their refusal, has to be a God of greatness beyond our imagining.

Indeed, there is only one appropriate response to such great love and that is to repent and believe.  Thiessen (1979, p. 192) correctly states that man "cannot of his free will regenerate himself, repent, nor exercise saving faith" – but neither are these actions produced within man apart from one’s willingness.

The responsible Christian must avoid extreme expressions of both synergism and monergism.   Monergism derives from Augustinianism and affirms that to be saved a person cannot and does not do anything whatever to bring it about.  Extreme forms of synergism date to Pelagius who denied depravity, but the moderate evangelical expression is based on Arminius and, more importantly and recently, Wesley.  Both emphasised an ability to freely choose, even in matters that affect one’s eternal destiny.  Man is depraved – but the totality refers to its field of operation and not its extent, thus one is not unable to respond (either positively or negatively) to God’s grace.   An evangelical synergist affirms that God alone saves, but they believe that Biblical universal exhortations to repent and believe make sense only if in fact man is able to accept or reject salvation (Pecota, 1994, p. 361).

Salvation stems entirely from God’s grace, but to state that that is so does not require one to diminish their responsibility when confronted with the gospel message.

CONCLUSION

In the unregenerate state, man is separate from Christ.  Sin has effected all of man’s person.  He is without hope and without God (Ephesians 2:12).

As human beings have sinned, they are responsible for their sins, and are guilty before God.  All have done wrong, by their own fault, and are therefore liable to bear the just penalty of such wrongdoing.  This is the argument of the early chapters of Romans – Paul divides the human race into three major sections.  He shows how each know something of their moral duty, but have deliberately suppressed its knowledge in order to pursue their own sinful course (Stott, 1989, p. 96).  As John wrote, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).
Man must be saved, and this by the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12), through repentance and faith in God.  Saving faith is principally divine in origin.  Jesus said that no-one could come to Christ unless the Father draws them (John 6:44) but one must count the cost of following Christ (Matthew 8:19-22; Luke 14:26-33), believe on Jesus (Acts 16:31) and confess Him as Lord (Romans 10:9).


WORKS CITED
Badham, D. nd. Man and Sin, Rhema Bible College,
Townsville.
________. nd. Soteriology, Rhema Bible College,
Townsville.
Best, W. E. 1992. Honoring the True God, W. E. Best Book
Missionary Trust, Houston, Texas.
Bruce, F. F. 1972. The Message of the New Testament, The
Paternoster Press, Carlisle, U.K.
Milne, B. A. 1980. ‘Sin’, in The Illustrated Bible
Dictionary, ed. F. F. Bruce, Inter-Varsity Press.
Morris, L. 1994. The Cross of Jesus, The Paternoster
Press, Carlisle, U.K.
Pecota, D. 1994. ‘The Saving Work of Christ’, in
Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed.
S. M. Horton, Logion Press, Springfield, Missouri.
Ryrie, C. C. 1960. `Depravity’, in Baker’s Dictionary of
Theology, ed. E. F. Harrison, Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Stern, D. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary, Jewish
New Testament Publications, Maryland.
Stott, J. R. W. 1989. The Cross of Christ, 2d. ed.,
Inter-Varsity Press.
Thiessen, H. C. 1979. Lectures in Systematic Theology,
rev. ed., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan.
Wright, D. F. 1968. In Understanding be Men, 6th. ed,
Inter-Varsity Press.