Total Depravity Explained

Article “Worse Than We Think – What Total Depravity Is (and Is Not) by Dr. Robert Letham, lecturer in systematic and historical theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology and author of Systematic Theology – source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/worse-than-we-think#modal-3117-h5xsuc56

The doctrine of total depravity is widely misunderstood. It is almost as important to know what it does not mean as what it affirms. Moreover, we will not grasp its full import unless we see it in a wider context.

In the phrase total depravity, the word depravity refers to a corrupt nature inherent in humanity ever since the sin of Adam. The necessary presupposition on which the doctrine of inherited depravity rests is the solidarity of the human race. Without that presupposition, the doctrine does not make sense.

We are not individuals in isolation. We are part of a collective whole, rather like slices of a gigantic pizza. In the Old Testament, people were seen in connection with their ancestors from the past and their tribal connections in the present; you were A the son of B the son of C of the tribe N. Hence, when Achan sinned, all Israel sinned (Joshua 7:1120). Likewise, the actions of the one man Adam directly affected the many (Romans 5:12–21).

Not only did we all incur guilt in Adam’s sin, but his vitiated nature was and is communicated to all his descendants. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it,

By this sin they [our first parents] fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. (6.2)

They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (6.3)

The modifier total in total depravity denotes that sin affects every facet of our nature. It does not mean that sinners are as bad as they possibly can be or that any one person is as bad as he possibly can be. Nor does it mean that fallen humans lack a conscience or that the world since the fall is entirely miserable and incapable of making any progress or appreciating the beauty evident all around. It means that no part of the personality is uncorrupted: the mind, the emotions, and so on. In William Shedd’s words, total depravity means “the entire absence of holiness, not the highest intensity of sin” (Dogmatic Theology, 2:257).

Real and Total Corruption

In contrast, Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of this topic had a defining effect on later Roman Catholic theology, held that original sin simply wounded human nature. He argued that it does not make us averse to virtue, although it weakens us in this pursuit and brings the penalty of death, all stemming from our inheriting Adam’s loss of original innocence. Sin stains us and makes us guilty, deserving punishment. It is like an illness, some sins being curable, others mortal (see Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae.85–87). Rome came to define corruption in purely negative terms, as the loss of the righteousness that was given by God as an addition to humanity’s naturally created condition.

On the other hand, the Reformers stressed that the depravity we inherited from Adam was real, total corruption (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.1.8). The biblical basis for their position is clear in that sin is universal (Genesis 6:5Romans 1:18–3:20). It renders humans blind to the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:142 Corinthians 4:1–6) and enemies of God (Romans 8:7Ephesians 2:1–3), and is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9). This sinful nature is the source of evil thoughts and actions (Matthew 15:16–20).

Blindness and Inability

In practice, total depravity means that there is no human faculty left untouched by sin, even in relative terms. The mind, as well as the emotions and appetites, is biased against God. We need renewal in the whole person. Moreover, the aesthetic sensibilities are also corrupted. The aversion of fallen people to all that reflects the evidence of the Creator in the world renders them incapable of appreciating his glory and beauty. The creation is viewed in itself rather than as the ravishing and resplendent gift of God.

Because of this, there is an inevitable distortion in humanity’s reception of God’s creation, for it is not seen as in reality it is. The joy is absent that should arise from grasping the real identity of the creation as penultimate and seeing beyond it the beauty of God. Only the renewing work of the Holy Spirit can take the scales from our eyes and turn us around to appreciate the creation appropriately, for otherwise we idolize it for its own sake or denigrate it out of spiritual blindness and indifference.

A direct corollary of total depravity is that fallen people cannot rescue themselves from their guilt and depravity. This is an ethical “cannot”; they cannot because they will not. “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:6–8), cannot receive the revelation of God (Matthew 16:171 Corinthians 2:14John 6:44–4564–65), cannot submit to the law of God (Romans 8:7), cannot respond of themselves to the grace of God in Christ, and cannot rescue themselves because they are covenantally dead (Ezekiel 37:1–6Ephesians 2:1–3).

It is true that fallen people can do much good of a moral, social, and cultural nature. They can show love to family, perform acts of kindness, produce great works of art, and make major contributions to civic welfare. However, apart from regeneration by the Spirit, they cannot do these activities to the glory of God. Nor, as a consequence, can they share the exultant joy of the psalmists in the wonders of God’s works (Psalms 19, 145, 147, 148). It requires a radical change, altering the entire bias of the human will, in order to respond positively to the gospel, a change that can be brought about only by the Holy Spirit.

Hearts Made Willing

Augustine put his finger on the consequences that arise from the denial of original sin and its impact throughout the depraved mind. In Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, he lists a number of elements of the Pelagian heresy. Its denial of original sin led to their supposition that salvation is based on our own merits and so is not properly grace at all. Augustine opposed both Manicheism and Pelagianism in his saying human nature is healable, since according to the Pelagians it did not need to be healed, whereas according to the Manicheans it cannot be healed since they considered evil to be coeternal and immutable.

For Pelagianism, faith and obedience are to be attributed to those who exercise them and so any failure is due to their not trying hard enough. J.I. Packer maintained that Pelagianism is the default position of zealous Christians who have little interest in doctrine (“‘Keswick’ and the Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification”). Leaving other matters aside, this heresy eradicated Christian joy, since it encouraged dependence on the constant uncertainties of our own efforts.

The root of Pelagianism, flowing from its denial of original sin and the totality of depravity, was a focus on morality, with an assertion of the ability of fallen people to respond to the gospel unaided by divine grace. It rested on the assumption that a command of God entailed the ability of those commanded to fulfill it. Augustine argued in reply that humans respond, but we do so since God makes us willing, and changes our hearts, so that we believe freely.

In short, the reality of total depravity leaves no possibility of salvation by our own efforts. It points to our dire condition from the fall and the sovereign work of God in rescuing us. Only the Holy Spirit can change us and transform us into the image of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God. This is a cause for unbounded thanksgiving to God and delight in his grace and goodness in Christ.

Did Jesus Die For Everyone?

Article by Eric Raymond – original source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/erik-raymond/jesus-die-everyone/

The atonement is central to Christian understanding and experience. We are the benefactors when we pore over the Word to better grasp Christ’s work. When doing so, we often encounter questions. One common question that comes up when thinking about the atonement is this: Did Jesus die for everyone or only the elect?

My answer to this question is this: I believe Jesus died on the cross for the elect. He did exactly what he intended to do and accomplished redemption for all who would believe, and not every person who ever lived.

One might answer back, But when you read John 3:16 we see that God “loved the world” and then in Hebrews 2:9 “Jesus taste death for everyone,” and finally in 1 John the Bible says that Jesus was the propitiation “for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). In light of this, how can anyone say that Jesus did not die for everyone?

These are important verses and questions. In this post I want to think this through biblically, theologically, and logically.

First, let me start by saying that everyone limits the atonement. Everyone, that is, except for the heterodox theology of the universalist (the view that all will be saved). The Arminian limits the power of the atonement, saying that the cross did not definitively save anyone but made salvation possible for all. The Calvinist, on the other hand, limits the extent of the atonement, that it does not save every person, but only the elect.

As a Calvinist, I limit the extent of the atonement. But by doing so, I am not limiting the value of the atonement; it is infinite. There is no way to improve upon the work of Christ—it is infinite and perfect. To be clear, when Calvinists speak of limited atonement, we are not speaking in terms of its value but rather the extent of it.

When we are thinking about this limiting, we have a choice. As B. B. Warfield says, “The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together.”

Jesus Christ either died for everyone, nobody, or the elect.

Nature of the Atonement

The Old Covenant sacrifices anticipate the death of Christ through types and shadows. They were patterned after their substance, the supreme sacrifice, the Lamb of God (Heb. 9:11-14; 13:10-13). When we read a passage like Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement, we find innocent animals beating the sin and guilt of the people. The priest was transferring the guilt of the people to the chosen animal by imputation. The sacrifice is then made with the offering of the animal in the place of the people. The Day of Atonement dealt with the sins of the people (even if only for a year). But the point is clear; they are not offering the animals as a potential redemption for every person who is alive that year. Instead, it is an accomplished atonement for the people of Israel. 

Further, Jesus death was substitutionary. He offered himself in our place. He suffered and died vicariously in place of sinners. 

He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13)

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Pet. 3:18)

John Murray in his book Redemption Accomplished and Applied writes:

If we concentrate on the thought of redemption, we shall be able perhaps to sense more readily the impossibility of universalizing the atonement. What does redemption mean? It does not mean redeemability, that we are placed in a redeemable position. It means that Christ purchased and procured redemption. This is the triumphant note of the New Testament whenever it plays on the redemptive chord. Christ redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev. 5:9). He obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). “He gave himself for us in order that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify to himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). It is to beggar the concept of redemption as an effective securement of release by price and by power to construe it as anything less than the effectual accomplishment which secures the salvation of those who are its objects. Christ did not come to put men in a redeemable position but to redeem to himself a people.”

The real question comes down to this: did he or didn’t he?

Did Jesus Christ satisfy divine wrath upon that cross or didn’t he? If he didn’t, then who will? And when? But if he did, then for whom?

It would be unbiblical to conclude that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God and bore the sins for those already suffering in hell. If he did pay their penalty, why is God punishing them a second time? 

Intent of the Atonement

What was the intent of the atonement? I like how Steve Lawson answers the question,:“The intent of the atonement is the extent of the atonement.”

What was Jesus’s intention? What was his plan for the atonement? He tells us that he would lay his life down for his sheep—and his sheep alone. 

I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:14-15)

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Do you sense his design and resolve here? “I must bring them . . . they will hear my voice” Or if we may shorten it: “I must . . . and they will.” Jesus Christ is going to the cross with the certainty of what he will do and how his sheep will respond. 

As he talks about the intent of his death, Jesus is interacting with some of the Jewish leaders. Amid their questions, Jesus tells them that the atonement is not for them. He limits the extent of his sacrifice.

But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. (John 10:26)

Remember, Jesus has already told us that he is dying for his sheep (John 10:15). But right here he tells them that they cannot hear his words (they do not believe) because they are not of his sheep. The Lord is saying that his death is for those who are his sheep, and they will hear his voice. In other words, Jesus’s death is for the elect and not for those who will not believe.

He applies a similar limit in his High Priestly prayer the night before his death: 

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. (John 17.9-10)

Jesus prays for those who are his. That is, he prays for his sheep, those who will believe upon his word.

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, (John 17.20)

Christ’s atonement has a vicarious, substitutionary nature. Jesus lived, died, and was raised for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3-5). This happened at a point of time that will never to be repeated again (Heb. 10:10). Therefore, Jesus accomplished the necessary redemption for all of his sheep. He fully satisfied and removed divine wrath while earning divine favor for his people. When we speak of limited atonement, we are referring to a limited scope, not a limited value or power. This is why many theologians prefer the language of particular redemption or definite atonement.

Some Supposed Unlimited Atonement Passages

Hebrews 2

But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9)

Context is important. Who is the everyone? Verse 10 tells us that he brings “many sons to glory,” verse 11 calls them “brethren,” verse 14 calls these people “the children,” v.16 says that they are the descendants of Abraham, v.17 says that they are “his brethren,” and again “the people.” I do not believe that everyone here refers to everyone who ever lived, but rather to this particular group of people already mentioned: the many sons, the children, the descendants of Abraham, his brethren, and the people. In other words, it is referring to his sheep or all who would believe.

John 3

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

This verse clearly says that God loves the world. But while the Son came into the world, the verse doesn’t say that the entire world will be saved. It limits the scope of salvation to those who would believe, “that whoever believes in him shall not perish.”

God loved the world in this particular way, that those who believe (the participle is in the present tense), who keep believing (i.e., the believers) will have eternal life. We could put it is a bit more literally, “God loves the world in this particular way, that he gave his only Son that the believing ones will not perish but have eternal life.” The verse says that those who believe will be saved. Loving and saving are united by believing. John is not talking about the extent of the atonement but the motive behind (love) and the means of accessing it (faith). We sometimes think of “whosoever” as exceedingly broad (arms open wide) instead of the particularity with which John seems to point here (to believers).

1 John 2

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2.2)

I think there is a good reason for the debate about this passage. It’s this last phrase that’s caused people fits when understanding what John is talking about. The question is simply this: in what sense is Jesus the propitiation for the sins of the whole world?

We have three main questions to answer:

  1. What does propitiation mean? Propitiation means the act of making God favorable to sinners by satisfying his wrath against them and removing their guilt before him.
  2. When did the propitiation happen? Propitiation is something that happened in the past, at the cross. But, Jesus’s work as an advocate for his people is an ongoing reality. Having the timing down is important.
  3. What does “world” mean? 

Sometimes it refers to all of creation, and sometimes it can refer to a broader group of people than initially focused upon.

If propitiation is accomplished and not every person who ever lived will be saved, then how can we understand John’s use of this word? Again, I think this is a harder passage. A rule of interpretation is to allow the more clear passages to shed light on those that we find to be less clear. Therefore, I’m okay with marshaling in many other passages that speak to the nature and extent of the atonement to help me understand this verse.

At the same time, I think there is a possible answer in John’s other writings. In the first-century Jewish world, you have the Jews and then the world—everyone else. John is a Jew and enjoyed a ministry primarily to Jews (Gal. 2). There was anticipation throughout the Old Testament that the Messiah would save not only the Jews but also the whole world, that is Gentiles (Gen. 12:1-3; Is. 56:8; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24Luke 2:22-38).

We see this conclusion somewhat surprisingly articulated by Caiaphas in John’s Gospel:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death. (John 11:49-53)

This sounds like Jesus in John 10:16, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

When I read 1 John 2:2 I think of what the word propitiation means, what Jesus did, and what else John teaches us about the nature and intent of the atonement, particularly with respect to non-Jews, it causes me to conclude that just as Jesus is the advocate for his people he is also the propitiation for the sins of his people. This includes all types of people, not just Jews, but people from every tribe and tongue (Rev. 5). I think by using the word “world” here, John is referring to a group of people from the nations, not just the nation of Israel.

John Owen’s Helpful Questions

I remember wrestling through this doctrine and trying to think through a number of biblical texts. As I was studying, I came across John Owen’s concise puzzle.

The Father imposed his wrath upon the Son, and the Son was punished for:

1. All the sins of all men.

2. All the sins of some men.

3. Some of the sins of some men.

In which case, it may be said:

a. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none is saved.

b. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

c. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or he did not. If he did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not, he did not die for all their sins!

Patience and Precision

I started by saying that we are the benefactors when we pore over the Word to better grasp the work of Christ. As we do this to help ourselves and others learn, it must be done with a sense of humility. One should only have to think for a moment about how insensitive it is to find personal pride when arguing about atonement for our sins!

A conversation like this should be characterized by the gentleness, patience, and precision it demands.

Doctrine of Grace Series

Total Depravity & The Clarity of Evangelism – Dr. Steve Lawson Unconditional Election & Hope For Evangelism – Dr. Steve Lawson Limited Atonement and Sincerity in Evangelism – Phil Johnson Irresistible Grace & Confidence in Evangelism – Rick Holland Perseverance of The Saints & Mature Evangelism – Anthony Kidd