Understanding The Traditional Doctrine

In most Evangelical circles, to argue against the doctrine of Total Depravity is paramount to committing heresy. In most Evangelical circles, to argue against the doctrine of Total Depravity is considered heresy. This doctrine is so widely accepted, it is often viewed as an integral part of orthodox Christian belief to the point where challenging it seems equivalent to challenging orthodoxy itself.

What is Doctrine?

Before questioning whether doctrine can be questioned, we should develop an understanding of what doctrine is. In its most basic understanding, doctrine is “the teaching of doctors,” as medicine is the teaching of medics and discipline is the activity of the disciple.

To put it simply, all doctrines are man-made and therefore all doctrines should be questioned. Every doctrine is a summary of a series of interpretations, as such, every doctrine has potential to be flawed. Therefore, doctrine not only can be questioned but should be questioned.

What Is Total Depravity?

Total Depravity is a doctrine in the realm of theological anthropology (the study of the nature of man). The doctrine arose chiefly out of Catholicism’s original sin doctrine and then was adopted and expanded upon by the Protestant reformers and became the basis of reformed theology.

The doctrine of Total Depravity goes beyond the biblical revelations that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and that everyone needs a Savior and cannot save themselves (Acts 4:12). The doctrine asserts that mankind is so totally depraved that he cannot and will not accept the Gospel even when perfectly presented and perfectly understood.

When understood in this light, it is evident that many evangelicals already reject Total Depravity and do so by changing the definition thereof. My goal, however, is not to redefine but to challenge. I aim to let the traditional definition of Total Depravity stand, but to reject the doctrine on its own terms.

Arguments Against Total Depravity

ARGUMENTS FROM NATURE

If Total Depravity exists, it would presumably be a result of the curse placed on creation in Genesis 3. It seems that every curse that God pronounced was upon all creation, not reserved for humanity alone. Even the promised Savior was going to bring a “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21). So, if this be true, where did the Total Depravity of man-alone come from? The doctrine involves a DNA change which is neither indicated in Genesis 3 nor seen in any of creation. Animals did not become vicious (as Noah’s story displays), trees did not cease to produce fruit (as the barrier to the entrance of the garden displays), and the universe did not cease to carry out its assigned tasks (as the Torah calendar displays).

Furthermore, altruism (selfless concern for others) in nature is seen all around us. This is evident in higher-level animals capable of a form of moral judgment. For instance, observe a mother bear risking her life to protect her cubs. Nowhere is this more evident than in humanity, which displays far more characteristics of basic goodness than inherent evil. Do the theologians really want to argue that Total Depravity is a reality though never seen in nature and only a spiritual reality? Such seems incompatible with a “doctrine of man.” Reformed theology has been forced to create a doctrine of “Common Grace” to overcome this glaring inconsistency with reality.

Arguments from Sociology

If man is totally depraved, would things like education, scientific advancement, music, and knowledge of our past really be effective at building a better society? These things are created by man and used by man for the betterment of the world. Can a Totally Depraved soul do such a thing? If mankind, capable of individual and societal good and making moral decisions based on logic, values, and truth, can create these positive aspects, can we really say he is so depraved as to be incapable of accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Arguments From Logic

Can it be argued that man is a morally responsible being and simultaneously argued that man is totally depraved? Yet holding humans morally responsible for their actions is a fundamental part of any working society. This logical inconsistency is so glaring that Reformed theology had to create a doctrine to mitigate the fallacy. The doctrine of compatibility is a concept within reformed theology that attempts to reconcile the perceived contradiction between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. It suggests that these two seemingly incompatible ideas can both be true, even if we can't fully understand how.

Reconciling Proof Texts

To refute the doctrine of Total Depravity, let’s simply reconsider texts used to “prove” the doctrine.

Ephesians 2:5 (along with Col. 2:13) – The total depravity position takes “we were dead” to mean, “we had no spiritual capability.” However, Romans 6:8 says that we are “dead with Christ,” and the same standard for “dead” is not held.

Romans 6:23 says that “all have sinned.” But this does not require a position that “all are incapable of receiving the gift that God freely offers.”

Genesis 6:5 shows a time when 'the wickedness of man was great in the earth.' However, even in this context, we see 'Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations' (Gen. 6:9).

Jeremiah 17:9 speaks about the deceitfulness of the heart. But the context is Israel, having strayed from the Lord. Proverbs 3:5-6 speaks of trusting the Lord with the heart, and Luke 6:45 speaks of the good treasure of a man’s heart.

Romans 3:10-18 contains a series of Biblical quotes. Rather than use these quotes to prove that every single individual is wretched, we should take them in the context of which they are found both here and in their original source. The point is not the “total depravity” of every man, woman, boy, and girl, but rather that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin (v. 9). When we apply these descriptions to every individual, we distort their context and cause conflicts with other Scripture passages that speak of individual righteousness. Examples include Luke 1:6, Genesis 7:1, Job 1:8, and Philippians 3:6.

In summary, no passage that is used as a proof-text of total depravity explicitly speaks of total depravity.