Are we born with a morally corrupt nature? (Sin 2)

Last time in our series on sin, we focused our attention solely on guilt. Is Adam’s guilt imputed to all humanity such that at birth we are condemned? This time we will turn our attention to corruption. Are babies born corrupted? If so, how vitiated are we? We’ll consider three main positions on this question including the belief that we are born totally depraved, depraved but free, and totally free.

Before getting into these three options, I want to be clear that our topic is moral corruption not physical. Most Christians recognize that our world in general and humanity in particular suffer from corruption. Few would deny that sickness, aging problems, and death itself are entailments of our fallen state. Our world too has been “subjected to futility” and is not “free from its bondage to corruption” (Rom 8.20-22).¹Those who hold an evolutionary position, especially without a historical Adam or Eve, struggle with the connection between these physical corruptions and the sin of Adam and Eve.

1. Totally Free

We are born without a tainted moral will. We may be morally immature and ignorant at birth, but we are equally capable of doing right and wrong. We are not bent towards sin nor are we bent towards righteousness. Our genetics and environment may diminish some people’s capacity to choose right over wrong, but assuming a nurturing environment with good examples, one should be able to choose honesty over lying, love over hatred, and courage over cowardice. In short, all humans today are born with just the same capacities as Adam and Eve before they fell.

Often called Pelagianism, the total freedom position has a couple of advantages. For one, it avoids the typical justice worry of suffering on account of an ancestor’s sin. Secondly, it avoids any charges of cruelty in that God does not saddle us with a propensity to carry out the very actions he hates and then punish us for not doing them. If God doesn’t want us to sin, why make us all sinners? Isn’t this like severing a man’s spine and then berating him for not walking?

Eastern Orthodox Christians recognize the Fall as disastrous, but do not believe it corrupted our human nature. Eve Tibbs explains:

St. Irenaeus believed that although Adam and Eve were immature and vulnerable, they had no excuse for sinning, and that although the image of God was tarnished, it was not lost. What was lost was communion with God. Russian Professor of Theology Paul Evdokimov represents the consensus of Patristic witness in stating that “the Fall severely inhibits the image of God, but does not corrupt it.” For Gregory of Nyssa, the image has not been lost, but something like an “ugly mask” now covers “the beauty of the image.” Humans still have free will, and in that free will we are able to exercise personal volition to turn toward God or to freely turn against God–as did our primal ancestors. Neither choice has been preordained. Orthodox Christianity teaches that following God’s will is a choice available to everyone, even after the Fall, since free will is still active.²Eve Tibbs, A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), 105.

Additionally, modern Catholics who embrace evolution and a “critical” view of scripture work hard to remove original sin from the individual and place it instead on society. They diverge significantly from previous dogmatic statements about inherited sin affirmed at the Synod of Carthage (418), the Synod of Orange (529), and the Council of Trent (1563). Tomas Rausch writes:

How do we understand original sin today? A naive approach sees it as a corruption affecting our human nature, inclining us to evil in the Catholic view or resulting in total depravity in Reformation theology. Inherited from Adam, the effects of original sin are passed on by generation, almost like a bad gene infecting the human genome. A more contemporary approach sees original sin as a social concept rooted in the radically social nature of the human person and the social nature of sin itself.³Thomas P. Rausch, Systematic Theology: A Roman Catholic Approach (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016), 143.

We will return to the earlier conservative view of Catholicism in the next section. But, suffice it to say that many Christians today embrace a total freedom perspective for the individual even if they recognize the damaging influence of our world.

Although, I must admit that the attractiveness of the totally free view, I see five objections against it: (1) personal experience, (2) salvation apart from Christ, (3) texts that teach sinfulness from birth, (4) texts that express the universality of sin, and (5) the testimony of the early church.

Objection 1: Personal Experience

I grew up in a Christian home and part of a community of faith. I did not suffer abuse, trauma, chronic stress, or food insecurity. My parents taught me and my siblings the bible from a young age and we were instructed in Christian morals. And yet…I found rebelliousness in my heart. I fought constantly with my siblings. I was radically self-centered; I stole; I lied; I cheated. Where did these behaviors come from in my childhood? My parents sheltered us from bad influences, including even Disney movies and Smurfs because they both contained magic. My parents only listened to Christian music and pumped it throughout the house on our 1980s intercom system. If I grew up in a godly environment surrounded by good examples, why was I so bad as a child?

Once I became a teenager, I embraced hedonism and a slew of self-destructive behaviors that resulted in multiple arrests and academic dismissal from college (see my story here). Later, after God saved me, I got married and had four of my own children. In raising them, I marveled at the disobedience and rebelliousness bound in their little hearts. I never taught them to lie; they just figured it out on their own. My wife would ask, “Did you eat the chocolate ice cream?” Child: “No, mama.” Meanwhile the kid has a ring of chocolate around his face where he stuck his head in the container to lick it. It’s hard to disagree with Wayne Grudem when he says:

Anyone who has raised children can give experiential testimony to the fact that we are all born with a tendency to sin. Children do not have to be taught how to do wrong; they discover that by themselves. What we have to do as parents is to teach them how to do right, to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6.4).⁴Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 626.

Of course, one need not be a parent to observe the rebelliousness bound in the heart of children. Let’s move on to the next objection.

Objection 2: Salvation apart from Christ

If we are born completely free to choose righteousness, unfettered by any sort of corrupted nature, then it stands to reason that some people would succeed in living perfectly. In the history of Christianity, many attempts to form utopian societies from hermits in the desert to monasteries and convents to myriads of other communes have provided superior environments and examples in which to raise children. Surely on Pelagianism, at least a handful of children with such sanctified societies would live without sin.

But, this introduces a new kind of salvation, doesn’t it? Since “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6.23), those few who manage to live without sin because they were raised in exemplary environments would not have earned death (in the ultimate sense) and, therefore, would not need salvation. How then can we agree with our Lord who said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14.6)? Wouldn’t that make a Jesus a liar if, in fact, we could find another way? What about Paul’s declaration that, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4.12)?

Objection 3: Born into Sin Texts

I won’t exegete each of these. Instead, I’ll just list them out so you can see them.

• “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Ps 51.5)
• “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” (Ps 58.3)
• “the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.” (Ecc 9.3)
• “from before birth you were called a rebel”(Is 48.8)
• “by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Rom 5.19)
• “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Eph 2.1-3; cf. Col 2.13)

Objection 4: Universality of Sin Texts

Beyond scriptures that teach we are born in sin, the bible speaks repeatedly about the universality of sin. Here are some of those texts:

• “Who can say, “I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin”?” (Prov 20.9)
• “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” (Ecc 7.20)
• “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way” (Is 53.6)
• “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer 17.9)
• “What then? Are we Jews better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”” (Rom 3.9-18)
• “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3.23)
• apart from Christ we are enslaved to sin (Rom 6.6, 17, 19, 20)
• apart from Christ sin reigns over us, making us obey its passions (Rom 6.12)
• apart from Christ “we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death” (Rom 7.5)
• “sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment [not to covet], produced in me all kinds of covetousness” (Rom 7.8)
• “the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin…I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate…it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me…I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” (Rom 7.14-23)
• “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom 8.7-8)
• “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all” (Rom 11.32)
• “put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires” (Eph 4.22)

Objection 5: Testimony of the Early Church

The most famous church father on the topic of our corrupted nature is Augustine of Hippo who lived in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. He famously debated with Pelagius and his followers and won the day, influencing the western church for centuries to come. I don’t think anyone will doubt Augustine’s position nor his influence. The question, however, is: did other church fathers prior to Augustine also believe in a corrupted nature, or was he innovating? Now, to be clear, I’m pretty convinced that Augustine innovated a great deal on the topic of original sin, but I do find evidence that plenty of his predecessors did also hold that sin was natural and inevitable even though they also were optimistic about humanity’s capacity to seek God and do good. Here are some quotes:

• Clement of Alexandria: “For to sin is natural and common to all.”⁵Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, ANF vol. 2, trans. Wilson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 293.
• Tertullian: “Man himself, guilty as he is of every iniquity, is not only a work of God—he is His image, and yet both in soul and body he has severed himself from his Maker…We, therefore, who in our knowledge of the Lord have obtained some knowledge also of His foe—who, in our discovery of the Creator, have at the same time laid hands upon the great corrupter, ought neither to wonder nor to doubt that, as the prowess of the corrupting and God-opposing angel overthrew in the beginning the virtue of man, the work and image of God, the possessor of the world, so he has entirely changed man’s nature—created, like his own, for perfect sinlessness—into his own state of wicked enmity against his Maker, that in the very thing whose gift to man, but not to him, had grieved him, he might make man guilty in God’s eyes, and set up his own supremacy.”⁶Tertullian, The Shows 2, ANF vol. 3, trans. S. Thelwall, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 80.
• Tertullian: “Even fallen as it [the soul] is, the victim of the great adversary’s machinations, it does not forget its Creator”⁷Tertullian, The Soul’s Testimony 5, ANF vol. 3, trans. S. Thelwall, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 178.
• Tertullian: “Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration;⁴ and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.”⁸Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul 40, ANF vol. 3, trans. Peter Holmes, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 220.
• Origen: “If, however, by those without sin he [Celsus] means those who have never sinned (for his words do not state his precise meaning), we will say that it is impossible for a man to be without sin in this sense. But when we say this we except the supposedly human Jesus, who did no sin.”⁹Origen, Against Celsus 3.62, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 170.
• Origen: “It is impossible for men not to have sinned from the beginning; but on rare occasions some are to be found who have not sinned since their conversion, who achieve this because they have turned to the saving word. But at the time they came to the word they were not like this. For without the word, the perfect word indeed, it is impossible for any man to become sinless.”¹⁰Origen, Against Celsus 3.62, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 175.
• Cyprian: “Let no one flatter himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart. Let no one depend on his own innocence. Let no one think that the medicine does not need to be applied to his wounds… In his epistle, John lays it down and say, ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.’ If no one can be without sin, whoever should say that he is without fault is either proud or foolish.”¹¹Cyprian, Treatise 8.3, trans. Ernest Wallis (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 547.
•  Gregory of Nyssa: “Any shrewd observer of the passions to which the soul is bound would think escape from the ills with which it is connected to be impossible and impractical. At the outset it is from passion we get our origin, with passion our growth proceeds, and into passion our life declines; evil is mixed up with our nature through those who from the first allowed passion in, those who by disobedience gave house-room to the disease. Just as with each kind of animal the species continues along with the succession of the new generation, so that what is born is, following a natural design, the same as those from which it is born, so from man man is generated, from passionate passionate, from the sinful its like. Thus in a sense sin arises together with those who come into existence, brought to birth with them, growing with them, and at life’s end ceasing with them. That virtue is hard to acquire, and barely achieved by effort and toil, sweating and straining a thousand times, is what we are often taught by divine scripture: we have heard that the road to the kingdom is confined and leads on through a narrow opening, while broad and downhill and easy to run on is the one which takes life through evil to destruction. To be sure, scripture has decreed the sublime life to be not totally unattainable, in that it has told the marvels of such great men in the sacred books.” ¹²Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 6 on the Beatitudes 5, trans. Stuart George Hall (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 71-2.

In conclusion, the totally free perspective does not adequately account for personal experience, Christ being the only way to salvation, texts that teach native corruption, texts that deny sinlessness, and the testimony of the early church. We now move on to a middle position.

2. Depraved and Free

Humans are born depraved in their moral will, but not so depraved that they cannot freely choose right over wrong. This view affirms the corruption inherited from Adam, called in the scriptures flesh, old self, and sin (in the abstract sense). To use C. S. Lewis’ term, we are bent. As a species we are fallen from our original state. This propensity toward sin is so strong within each one of us that sin is inevitable. Alva Huffer put it this way:

All…are born with a natural bent toward sin. Adam’s descendants have a natural bias toward wickedness. When the sinner is faced with temptation, the balances of decision weigh heavy in favor of sin.¹³Alva Huffer, Systematic Theology (McDonough, GA: Atlanta Bible College, 2010).

Nevertheless, at each individual decision, we are still morally free.

For an analogy, consider an escalator that is moving downwards. If a woman stands still on it, she will slowly move down until she gets to the bottom, which represents a sinful act. If she walks upwards at a leisurely pace, she will remain in the middle, neither doing right nor wrong. It will take her extra effort to get to the top. She will have to walk at a brisk pace or maybe even run. She is certainly capable of doing this, but it takes much more effort than allowing nature to bring her to the bottom. Now, we might disagree on how fast the escalator is moving, but that we have default that predisposes us to do what is wrong is certain.

Our human nature is not what it used to be, but neither is it so corrupted that even our righteous deeds are tainted with evil motives. The Catholic Catechism puts it this way:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin–an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” ¹⁴Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 405 (Liuori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), 102.

The Council of Trent taught “this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own”¹⁵General Council of Trent: Fifth Session, “Decree Concerning Original Sin,” section 3, June 17, 1546, p. 22., however, they anathematized anyone who said, “since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished.”¹⁶General Council of Trent: Sixth Session, “On Justification,” Canon 5, January 13, 1547, p. 45.

Some who hold a depraved and free moral will agree with the old Roman Catholic position that people inherit both Adam’s guilt as well as a corruption. Other Christian groups shied away from inherited guilt while affirming inherited corruption. Don Thorsen explains:

Some later Protestants, among them Methodists and Adventists, used the language of original sin in talking about people’s propensity to sin. However, they downplayed talk about inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin. They preferred to emphasize the guilt of sin in people’s present lives, rather than the nature and extent of guilt inherited from Adam.¹⁷Don Thorsen, An Exploration of Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 164.

Beyond the theologians, whether Catholic or Protestant, philosophers have also grappled with our corrupt nature.  Analytic theologian, Richard Swinburne, explains it as a genetic “proneness” to wrongdoing.

While the transmission of moral belief is a cultural phenomenon, the transmission of the bad part, as it were, of the proneness to wrongdoing is biological, through our genes. Although the core of original wrongdoing is something transmitted genetically, environment plays a large role in determining whether its effects are magnified or not… That there is in humans this proneness to wrongdoing is something which has been recognized in some for or other by all religions and by most poets and artists who have given any thought to the human condition. Note that it is not a proneness to do what is wrong because it is wrong, it is a proneness to do what is wrong despite the fact that it is wrong.¹⁸Richard Swinburne, Responsibility and Atonement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 114, 116.

Such a proneness (what I’m calling “partial depravity”) is not irresistible, but it does stack the deck in favor of sin.

Only if we recognize the depravity within us can we explain the universality of sin. Surely in billions of people over centuries upon centuries we would find some pious pagans who by luck or because of an idyllic environment are able to live without sin. Yet, we find none. Even with Christ, sin tugs at us. Only by affirming our freedom can we avoid the justice worry of God either causing or allowing us to become so bent that we cannot do good and then holding us accountable for the sin we cannot avoid. Only with a partially depraved and partially free position, can we affirm both God’s justice in judging sinners and sin’s universality, regardless of environment or examples.

Objection 1: Inherited Corruption Isn’t Fair

Why should I be punished for what my most ancient ancestors did? This is the same issue I raised in my last post: “Are We Born Guilty of Adam’s Sin?” It is an important question not to be overlooked. If my great-grandmother committed some horrible crime, why should I–who never even met her–be held accountable? Imagine a courtroom where a twenty year-old man stepped forward and said, “I will bear the punishment due to my uncle.” What court would allow such a transfer of consequences?

Before offering a response, it’s important to understand that everyone has to deal with this problem. Even if some do not believe in inherited guilt or inherited corruption, most of us recognize that we have inherited mortality. If you believe you are mortal because of our first parent’s decision, then you also must answer how it is fair for a descendant to suffer the consequences of an ancestor.

One way to approach the question is to consider the nature of cause and effect. For our world to be the kind of place where relationships, building, discovery, and inventions can happen, we must have a real law of cause and effect. However, due to the nature of cause and effect, what one does earlier in time affects others later. If I take a job in Antarctica, my family will grow up on the bottom of the world. If I squander my resources and ruin my credit, my children will not get any financial help from me when they go to college. If the first people rebel against God and initiate a separation between him and our world, then their children will also be born into a world separated from God. If Adam and Eve lose access to the tree of life, their great-great-grandchildren will also not have access. The same principle that allows us to build houses or businesses or bank accounts and bequeath them to our children is at work with respect to inherited corruption. In my view, we inherit the consequences, but not the guilt of Adam’s sin.

If we recognize that God is the absolute source of all that is good, separation from him logically results in the privation of good. In a sense, God has become an exile from our world. He tells Moses, “man shall not see me and live” (Ex 33.20). John agrees when he says, “No one has ever seen God” (Jn 1.18). Paul speaks of God, “whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim 6.16). And yet, in the bible’s last book, we read of time when “the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them” (Rev 21.3) and “They will see his face” (Rev 22.4). Assuming that Adam and Eve had direct access to God, based on how “they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden” (Gen 3.8), this situation of alienation from God is part of the fall. As humans separated from God, the “natural” consequence of this is a loss of moral ability. How exactly this blight on our moral nature occurred and how it is passed on leads me to speculate about a genetic component, but the answer could just as well be spiritual or metaphysical. Nevertheless, specificity here is unnecessary, so long as the objection has been plausible met.

Objection 2: Moral Culpability

If our depraved natures that we inherited from our ancestors make us sin, then how can God hold us accountable? How is it righteous for God to punish those who can’t help but sin? This objection has much more force on the total depravity position than on partial depravity. Since in each discrete instance one is still free to resist their innate propensity toward sin, he or she is culpable. In fact, this is also how our legal system works. We imprison murderers who have experienced horrifying trauma as children, don’t we?

Even if terrible evil has made a man brutal and violent and lacking empathy, that doesn’t mean he has to murder others. Now to be clear, I’m not talking about people so damaged that they qualify as insane. I’m thinking of people who are bent towards evil because of terrible experiences in their lives, but are still capable of not committing crimes and knowing right from wrong.

Our legal system holds such people accountable precisely out of a desire to enforce justice. So it is with God. He condemns sin not because he’s unfair, but the exact opposite. His righteous character cannot rationalize away sin or pretend it isn’t wicked. By definition sins are crimes against righteousness and God recognizes that. Furthermore, God has made a way out of sin through his various acts of redemption, culminating in the Christ event. Yes, we are flawed and sin. Yes, God holds us accountable for our actions. But, he’s also provided a path of forgiveness and salvation.

Objection 3: Was Christ Depraved?

Another issue raised against affirming universal human depravity (whether partial or total) relates to Christology. If all humans inherit a propensity toward sin such that sin is inevitable and Christ is fully human, then doesn’t it follow that Christ too by virtue of his full participation in the human condition is a sinner? Interestingly enough, Methodius was already considering this question in the fourth century.

For when Adam, having been formed out of clay, was still soft and moist, and not yet, like a tile, made hard and incorruptible, sin ruined him, flowing and dropping down upon him like water. And therefore God, moistening him afresh and forming anew the same clay to His honour, having first hardened and fixed it in the Virgin’s womb, and united and mixed it with the Word, brought it forth into life no longer soft and broken.”¹⁹Methodius, Discourse 3: Thaleia 5, trans. William R. Clark (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 318

Although I disagree with Methodius’ assertion that in Christ’s case his clay was hard–that is to say, he could not sin–I do appreciate his recognition that Christ’s humanity was on par with Adam’s. In other words, Christ himself did not inherit a corrupted moral nature such that sin was inevitable (given enough decisions). Rather, our Lord’s humanity was entirely neutral like Adam’s and Eve’s. He could have sinned like them or chosen righteousness at each potential fork in the road. He could trust in God or he could trust the serpent. He could depend on God’s spirit within him or he could look to his own senses. He always did what was right even though he was “one who in every respect has been tempted as we are” (Heb 4.15). For more on Jesus’ peccability, see this video.

Now, it is time for us to move on to the last option and consider the opposite position of where we started.

3. Totally Depraved

Total depravity is the idea that by default we are all completely affected by sin. It does not merely corrupt our longevity but also our moral compass, will, and motivations. One standard definition comes from the Westminster Confession:

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

III. 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.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.²⁰Westminster Confession 6.2-4, accessible here.

All people are “wholly defiled,” so that we are “wholly inclined to all evil.” Our sinfulness prevents us from pleasing God whatsoever. We are all born so tainted by original sin that we will not seek God or do what pleases him. John Calvin saw human nature as “destitute of all good,” “totally vitiated and depraved,” and “utterly defiled and polluted.”²¹John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1921), 229-30, 680. Wayne Grudem offers the following summary:

In spite of the ability to do good in many senses of that word, our inherited corruption, our tendency to sin, which we received from Adam, means that as far as God is concerned we are not able to do anything that pleases him… Not only do we as sinners lack any spiritual good in ourselves, but we also lack the ability to do anything that will in itself please God and the ability to come to God in our own strength… Unbelievers are not even able to understand the things of God correctly… [T]here is still a kind of “freedom” in the choices that people make. Yet because of their inability to do good and to escape from their fundamental rebellion against God, and because of their fundamental preference for sin, unbelievers do not have freedom in the most important sense of freedom–that is, a freedom to do what is pleasing to God.²²Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 626-7

All humans are so corrupt that scripture calls us “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2.1). We are “captive to the law of sin” (Rom 7.23) and “serve the law of sin” (Rom 7.25). Without Christ we are “slaves to impurity and to lawlessness” (Rom 6.19). After all, our Lord said, “everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (John 8.34). In fact, “No one seeks God…no one does good, not even one” (Rom 3.11, 12). “All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Is 64.6). Paul summarized it well, when he said, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (Rom 7.18).

Charles Hodge explained it thus:

This corruption of nature…renders the soul spiritually dead, so that the natural, or unrenewed man, is entirely unable of himself to do anything good in the sight of God.²³Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 230.

To this doctrine, I offer four main objections: (1) moral culpability, (2) altruism among unbelievers, (3) Old Testament righteousness, and (4) texts that say the unsaved can choose right.

Objection 1: Moral Culpability

As with the partial depravity position, total depravity must answer how God is righteous in punishing those who cannot do other than sin. Imagine you genetically engineer a dog to bark every time a doorbell rings. Then, each time a doorbell rings, you count it as a punishable offense. The dog cannot do otherwise than you’ve programmed it. Holding it accountable for it’s designed nature is unjust. Is God unjust? By no means!

Now the partial depravity position was able to escape the force of this justice worry because each person can actually choose right over wrong in each discrete instance. So, because it’s possible to do right, it’s thinkable to punish those who do wrong. But, on total depravity, even so-called righteous deeds carried out by unbelievers are tainted with bad motives, reducing them to sin. Thus, we are left with a God who punishes people for what they cannot avoid doing.

Objection 2: Altruism among Unbelievers

The atheist soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, the Hindu woman who gives to a beggar on the street even though she doesn’t have enough for herself, the Muslim businessman who pushes a child out of the way of a bus and gets injured in the process–these and many more scenarios are examples of righteous deeds done by those outside of Christ. On total depravity, we have to somehow problematize every instance of apparent goodness. We can say that the atheist was one of the elect, but didn’t know it yet or that the Hindu was giving money to feel better about herself or that the Muslim man performed his action as a publicity stunt. Nevertheless, the burden is far to great once we multiple such righteous acts carried out by unbelievers to hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions. The total depravity adherent must discount every single act of “non-depravity” by the unregenerate. Such a burden, is too great to bear.

Now some, feeling the force of this argument, modify the claim to say that the issue really comes down to faith. After all, “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11.6). Thus, any so-called good act is not pleasing to God if carried out by someone without faith. But, is this really what Heb 11.6 has in mind? Is this text talking about the good actions of unbelievers and discounting them? Of course not, it is discussing the righteous deeds by Old Testament saints, like Enoch. Just imagine how absurd it would be for God to see the altruism of an unregenerate person–the same deed done with the same motives as a regenerate person–and say, “That doesn’t please me.” If I give to the poor expecting nothing in return and a Muslim woman does the same, how can my deed be righteous and hers wicked?

Objection 3: Old Testament Righteousness

In addition to piety among unbelievers, we also must account for good deeds done by those who lived before Christ.  For example, our Lord called Abel righteous (Mat 23.35) and Hebrews says, “he was commended as righteous” (Heb 11.4). How could Abel do something righteous, much less be righteous unless he was regenerated? Was regeneration available before Christ’s work? If so, where does the scripture say so? If not, then total depravity can’t be true, since we have plenty of examples of righteous deeds and righteous people like Enoch (Gen 5.24), Noah (Gen 6.9; 7.1), and Job (Ezk 14.14) prior to Christ. Furthermore, when Moses, Joshua, and Elijah challenged Israel, they spoke as if they really did have the choice to serve God or not (Deut 30.19; Josh 24.15, 22; 1 Kings 18.21). Is the solution to problematize every act of righteousness the bible describes? If my doctrine makes me attack the righteous examples the bible itself holds up for me, doesn’t that call my doctrine into question?

Objection 4: Texts That the Unsaved Can Choose Right

If unsaved people can, in fact, choose to do what is right, then they are not totally depraved, right? Sure, they are depraved, but they are also free, aren’t they? If I ask my child to levitate, is that a fair question? Would God ask his children to choose righteousness when he knows they are unable?

• Genesis 4.6–7
  6 The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
• Luke 7.30
  but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
• Romans 2.14–15
  14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

We will return to discuss the doctrine of “total inability” in greater detail next time when we wrestle with the question, “Can unbelievers believe in the gospel?”

In conclusion, scripture is too abundant on the universality of sin and the innate wickedness in the heart of people from birth to affirm total freedom. However, the bible too often calls us to repent, believe, and do what is right to accept that we are totally depraved. Thus, I find myself holding a middle position, affirming both freedom and depravity.

Footnotes:

• 1
  Those who hold an evolutionary position, especially without a historical Adam or Eve, struggle with the connection between these physical corruptions and the sin of Adam and Eve.
• 2
  Eve Tibbs, A Basic Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), 105.
• 3
  Thomas P. Rausch, Systematic Theology: A Roman Catholic Approach (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016), 143.
• 4
  Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 626.
• 5
  Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, ANF vol. 2, trans. Wilson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 293.
• 6
  Tertullian, The Shows 2, ANF vol. 3, trans. S. Thelwall, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 80.
• 7
  Tertullian, The Soul’s Testimony 5, ANF vol. 3, trans. S. Thelwall, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 178.
• 8
  Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul 40, ANF vol. 3, trans. Peter Holmes, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 220.
• 9
  Origen, Against Celsus 3.62, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 170.
• 10
  Origen, Against Celsus 3.62, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 175.
• 11
  Cyprian, Treatise 8.3, trans. Ernest Wallis (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 547.
• 12
  Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 6 on the Beatitudes 5, trans. Stuart George Hall (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 71-2.
• 13
  Alva Huffer, Systematic Theology (McDonough, GA: Atlanta Bible College, 2010).
• 14
  Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 405 (Liuori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), 102.
• 15
  General Council of Trent: Fifth Session, “Decree Concerning Original Sin,” section 3, June 17, 1546, p. 22.
• 16
  General Council of Trent: Sixth Session, “On Justification,” Canon 5, January 13, 1547, p. 45.
• 17
  Don Thorsen, An Exploration of Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 164.
• 18
  Richard Swinburne, Responsibility and Atonement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 114, 116.
• 19
  Methodius, Discourse 3: Thaleia 5, trans. William R. Clark (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 318
• 20
  Westminster Confession 6.2-4, accessible here.
• 21
  John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1921), 229-30, 680.
• 22
  Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 626-7
• 23
  Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 230.