Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP Total Depravity

Here is the latest podcast, where we begin a little series briefly examining all the five points of Calvinism!

Papal Fallibility

I recently became aware of an article quoting the recently appointed Pope Francis and his comments on our ability to do good, as well as our atonement, which were made last Wednesday. I felt compelled to offer a brief response to it. Here's the opening section from the article:

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”

The reference here (the daily reading) is to Mark 9:38-40. Here are the words of the verses:

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us."

Note something the pope left out, in both instances: these things were done in the name of Christ. The man who was "doing good" (actually, casting out demons) was doing so in the name of Christ. Christ speaks of those who work in his name, and who will not speak evil of him. Pope Francis is making it sound as if the disciples came across a random guy on the street giving money to a homeless man, and got upset because he wasn't a Christian. On the contrary, they found a man who was casting out things in Christ's name, and were curious if they should stop him because he wasn't one of Christ's direct disciples. That is, he was a follower of Christ but hadn't received direct orders from Christ to do those things, and the disciples were worried about what appeared to be unorthodox way of continuing the message of Christ.

Pope Francis, however, takes this erroneous interpretation of Mark 9:38-40 and broadens out the capability of individuals to do good:

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy."

We've already established that Mark 9:38-40 is not about doing general "good things," but be that as it may, let's first define our terms at this point: when we speak of "good," do we mean simply "nice" things? If, that is, we are saying even the most passionate atheist can open up a door for an old woman, then I think no one will contest that. Of course everyone is capable of being "nice" or acting like a "good guy."

If, however, by "good" we mean doing that which is pleasing to God, then we run into a serious problem - and serious because it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about human nature. The apostle Paul told us that "none is righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10), and that men are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). Christ himself told the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). The prophet Isaiah wrote that "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (Isa 64:6). The testimony of scripture is that none are considered "good" before God outside of Christ - neither in person or in deed.

Yet Pope Francis contests that a non-Catholic (or a non-Christian for that matter) "must" do good, because he "has this commandment within him." In some regards, this is true, as the apostle Paul wrote:

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. 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 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [Romans 2:14-16]

Men have the Law written on their hearts, so that even an atheist, deep down inside, feels some inkling that it's wrong to murder. This is why virtually every culture in the world has laws concerning murder, adultery, rape, etc. The issue, however, is if merely doing works of the Law makes one justified before God. As we've seen before, this isn't possible. As the apostle Paul writes later on in the same epistle: "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20).

The next section is even more astounding:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."

The Lord has redeemed us all? Everyone? All men have been absolved of their sins? Here we run into two problems:

Firstly, this isn't consistent with the teaching of scripture. If Christ redeemed us all, why then does Christ say "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11), and that these sheep are those whom the Father have given to them (John 10:29)? (I talk more of the sheep in John 10 in this post.) Why is it said Christ came to save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21)? Why does the apostle Paul state it was the church which Christ "obtained with his own blood" (Acts 20:28)? Why is it said Christ died for the church (Eph 5:25) and for the elect (Rom 8:32-33)? It is clear from this that there is, in fact, a particular redemption, over and against a general redemption. Christ did not redeem everyone who ever lived. Even Christ himself did not say that he came as a "ransom for all", but as a "ransom for many" (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45), and the author of Hebrews says that Christ has been offered once "to bear the sins of many" (Heb 9:28).

Secondly, this runs into problems with the idea of atonement versus judgment, for if all men are redeemed, then why are any in hell? Why would any men be in hell? Some here will say, "It is because they have rejected Christ and do not have faith." Unbelief, however, is listed as an equal sin with other acts against the Law of God (1 Co 6:8-10; Rev 21:8; 22:15) - let us not forget also that one of the Ten Commandments was the command to worship the true God (Ex 20:3). Are we to say that those who come to faith in Christ out of the mire of atheism or false religions are not forgiven for violating the very first commandment? If, indeed, they are forgiven by the blood of Christ, why then are not other unbelievers forgiven and redeemed by the blood of Christ? If it possible for men to go into hell, then they are not truly redeemed.

In this same vein, we run into a problem with Pope Francis' statement "and this Blood makes us children of God of the first class!" The scriptural definition of being a "child of God," however, belongs to those who are in the faith, regenerated internally by God, just as the apostle John wrote:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:12-13]

Our becoming children of God is not reliant upon merely being born into lineage ("not of blood"), nor by anything we intentionally do by our own power ('nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man"), but rather through the regeneration wrought by God ("born...of God"). When this occurs, we become children of God through adoption.

The apostle Paul likewise spoke, regarding our status as children of God:

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:16-17]

The pope asks atheists to "do good: we will meet one another there," for the sake of peace. Again, if he's just talking about "being nice," I would be all for that, and we should all get along. The pope, however, goes on to state that "doing good" is not a matter of faith, but "it is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always." While it is true that we are made in the likeness of God, let us not forget that this image is fallen. The inclination of man is not to do that is pleasing to God, let alone honor the true God. It is impossible for the pope to meet an atheist halfway because the atheist is repulsed by the God which the pope claims to worship. Any "meeting halfway" will be superficial peace, not sincere peace, for a hatred still exists, in whatever form, between the non-Christian and the Christian's Master. It is like those who say "Peace, peace," when there is no peace (cf. Jer 8:11).

As I've said before, no Christian denies that a non-Christian can do "nice" things, or be a "nice" guy, but in regards to our status before God, all men are guilty and their "good" means nothing, unless it is done, as the evangelist Mark said, in Christ. John Climacus, an ancient desert ascetic and author of the famous Ladder of Divine Ascent, said that doing good works without Christ was like pouring water into a bucket with a hole at the bottom. The "nicest" person in the world, if they do not have Christ, is still an object to be fed into hell, for they are still guilty of their sins. The righteousness of God is not in doing works of the Law, for the "righteousness of God" is found "faith in Jesus Christ," and can only be found there, for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:22-23). As I said, it would be impossible for a Christian and an atheist to meet halfway in the "doing of good," because there is a difference on what is motivating either case. It is also problematic because the very standard of what is "good" is being denied by one of the parties.

Let me end here by saying that if you are outside of Christ, then you must realize that all the "good" you do will not atone for your sins, and that you will be guilty before God for all you have done. This is a serious matter to consider, because we are speaking of eternity - and eternity is a long, long time. Scripture tells us that "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22). Thankfully, God himself took on the role of ultimate sacrifice, when God the Son gave his life to offer "one sacrifice for sins for all time" (Heb 10:12), so that those who repent of their sins and confess faith in him may be saved. God is granting you time to do this, even now, as you're reading this blog post. If not, at least ponder these things seriously, and know that Christ is a perfect Savior from whom you shall never be snatched, for he promises regarding his sheep that "no one will snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28), and it is said that he is one who is "able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25). Ponder these things carefully. God bless.

Questions on Salvation

On an internet forum, I had responded to some questions concerning salvation, and I decided to repost it here on my blog. The questions asked are the ones in bold.

What do you have to do to be saved?

Let's make something clear: the act of salvation is the work of God. Paul states in Romans 3 that there are no righteous, no not one, and all have fallen short of the glory of God (v. 10 and 23); he likewise states in Ephesians 2 that we are dead men and (literally in the Greek) "objects of wrath" before God (v. 1-3). What happens then is a regeneration of our heart - as Paul said: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved" (Eph 2:5). While we were dead, God made us alive - God had to raise us spiritually in order for us to be saved, hence sola gratia. This regeneration causes a person to confess faith in God, as the apostle John wrote:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [Jn 1:12-13]

A lot of people like to quote v. 12 and forget what happens in v. 13: the apostle clarifies that a person is not a child of God because they were born by blood (that is, you're saved because you're a Jew, or because you're in a Christian family), nor by the will of flesh (that is, your works), nor by the will of man (that is, your own individual will to believe), but you are born of God - that is, by God's will. This is what our Lord meant when he told Nicodemus one had to be "born again" to see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3). We owe nothing to ourselves and all to God the Father and the atoning work of Christ - soli deo gloria and solus christus.

Now one thing we have seen here likewise is the importance of faith. When we turn to Christ, we are justified by his blood through our faith, and we are counted as righteous in Christ. As the apostle Paul wrote: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Ro 4:4-5).

Once you are saved, does that mean that you're automatically going to heaven?

Those who are God's sheep will never be lost, as Christ said:

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." [Jn 10:28-29]

The apostle Paul likewise wrote:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Ro 8:31-39]

Now if by "automatically going to heaven" you mean that's it, you got your ticket punched and you're going to heaven no matter what you do, even if it's murder, then that's wrong. People often confuse the doctrine of OSAS with Perseverance of the Saints, but they're not the same. Perseverance does not mean you're clear to go no matter what: part of the perseverance is that you will be sanctified more and more by God, approaching closer and closer that state of glory - you'll never be sinless, but more and more you'll find you can sin less. A lot of people like to quote Philippians 2:12, but can't seem to grasp that it's only half a sentence. The full passage from Paul reads:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Php 2:12-13]

Yes, after being saved, we do things for our betterment or to show we are saved (as a pastor of mine once said, we're not "chosen to be frozen"), but it's not because of something we have to do or something we are capable of doing - it's because God is working within us and perfecting us, and He will see this through. As the apostle Paul said: "he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6).

What if you commit a mortal sin after you are saved?

A Christian is judged by their fruits - a person who has a heart regenerated towards God will not go out and seek to kill someone, or steal a car, or the like. He might have those temptations, he might come close, but as seen before, God will preserve him from all acts that would violate this.

I know it's not popular for some to suggest that a statement of faith can be false, or that we can judge whether or not a person is truly saved, but I believe this to be scriptural. The Lord speaks of those who call him "Lord, Lord," and yet were never known by him (Mt 7:22-23). If you study the language the apostle John uses against Diotrephes (3 Jn 1:9-11) and Jude uses against the heretics and false teachers (Jude 1:17-21), you'll see they are questioning whether or not the individuals were truly Christians to begin with.

I am getting confused. Does the person have a choice in the matter? Do they only choose once?

If by choice you mean the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism where God gives a general offer and a person, by their own power, chooses, then no. If you mean does man do anything, then yes, but it is only by the grace of God. As Paul said in Ephesians 2, we are dead men before regeneration - it is God who brings us to life, not ourselves. However, once we are regenerated, then we turn and come to Christ, and are kept preserved by him. As the Lord said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). In the original Greek, it literally reads "no one has the power to come to me," and the drawing is not a passive thing, but is an effectual calling upon the person (the word literally means "dragging"), and the end result is that, on the last day, that person is raised up.

I'm not quite certain I know what you mean by "only choose once." A person repents and puts their faith in Christ only once, yes, though they will continue to turn to Christ for repentance and strength their entire life - again, an aspect of the "perseverance." They rest in the knowledge that they have a high priest who "always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). 

A Total Inability Poster

Did Lazarus contribute?

Did Lazarus contribute to his being raised? Was he the deciding factor in it happening? That some believe so has often astounded me. I was going to write a post on this, but instead I'll let someone else have a say at it and just engage with any conversation that gets started.

Dead Men Answer?

All credits to the original artist. For those who might be curious, see my post here.

Animals and Evil

The following post has some spoilers - just a fair warning!

Sometime ago I watched the 1994 German animated film Felidae. Based off a German novel by the same name, the film tells the story of Francis, a domesticated cat whose owner moves into a neighborhood wherein he soon discovers that there's a cat serial killer on the loose. In the investigation that follows, Francis discovers that it's another cat named Paschal, who had gone through animal testing. In the process, Paschal had learned a lot from the humans, including the concept of genetics, from which he designed a plan to create a "super cat" (code-named "felidae") bred from preferred specimens - the murders were to remove the "unwanted" genes from the neighborhood. After a fight in which Francis fatally wounds his opponent, Paschal laments, "Look at me now, and all you see is evil, yet once I was good." Francis later tells a friend, regarding Paschal, "He lost his innocence, as man has lost his."

It's a really interesting film, though definitely not one for kids (but it's a false presupposition to think all animation should be). What I found most interesting was the film's interpretation of mankind's sinfulness. Namely, it recognized that man was inherently evil, and Paschal had been good until he interacted with the teachings and beliefs of men, wherein he became evil. The cat was not corrupt until he encountered, was taught, and embraced mankind's corruption. All the same, the film seems to take a Pelagian mindset near the end, when Francis tells the audience that it's still possible for humans to be as innocent as animals, achieving what ultimately truly is "felidae."

In some ways this mindset is very true. For certain, some levels of cruelty exists in the animal world: ants make war, invade, and even enslave other insect colonies; cats themselves are known to play with their prey before finally killing them; wolves and other predators will purposefully taunt, wound or tease their fleeing prey before finally going in for the kill; some animals will eat their young or the young of other mothers. Yet with animals, there is a certain purpose behind all this. For many, such as ants and cats, it is nothing more than instinct. For others, such as wolves or other predators that gradually kill their fleeing prey, it allows them to weaken their opponent to make for an easier kill. For others still, the eating of children is merely for the purposes of survival or fear of competition with their own young.

With humans, however, there is a greater level of cruelty, because our level of cruelty is mixed with our reason, our emotions, and our intellect. During the climactic defense scene in Straw Dogs, what made the actions of Dustin Hoffman's character so shocking was not necessarily just that he was doing them, but that, early on in the film, he had been established as an intelligent character, and now that intelligence was being used to harm or kill other human beings. Perhaps what still makes the Holocaust the most horrific form of genocide in human history is the fact that it was human ingenuity mixed with human cruelty. The Nationalist Socialists and their sympathizers hated certain undesirables in society, and had now found a way to eliminate them in the most efficient, cheapest, and quickest way possible. While Mendel (who is mentioned, and even depicted, in the film) had no wicked intentions with his study of genetics, he surely would be horrified to learn what man has since done with it. On this level, even the fiercest shark or the meanest wild animal seem far more civilized than humanity.

All the same, that still brings us to the issue of animals as a role model. One difference between mankind and animals is that mankind is able to distinguish between right and wrong on a basis of moral codes. Try discussing why war is ethically wrong to a colony of ants invading a termite hill, and you won't get any where. Try to tell a male stray dog sexually assaulting a female stray dog why rape is bad, and you'll achieve nothing. Certainly animals can be conditioned to feel guilt or remorse, but without this training they would care otherwise. A dog raised from a pup to know not to relieve himself on the carpet will show remorse when you scold him for doing so because he recognizes why he is being scolded; a dog never trained to know whether the grass or the carpet is the bathroom will not care, no matter how much you yell at him.

In fact, Christian tradition has often used animals as an example of what man is like when he sinks low. The reason devils today are often depicted with tails and horns is because early Christian art added such features to depict visually how an "animal-like" state might look. Jude, in his epistle, compares the false teachers and heretics as being "unreasoning animals" (Jude 1:10). If you poke a lion with a stick, he doesn't know well enough to take deep breaths and count to ten - at some point, he will attack you, because that is what his bare animal instincts tell him. In the same manner a human being who lashes out with wild, violent anger that he knows is otherwise wrong is sinking to the level of animals.

All mankind has, within themselves, some level of judgment. The apostle Paul wrote that men "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18), and likewise "know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die" (Rom 1:32). We see this in the fact that even the most ardent atheists, who might deny some of the moral law, will nonetheless accept much of the moral law (even at times, ironically, to attack God). Even a person who denies moral absolutes will quickly change their tune if you then attempt to vandalize their car or commit bodily harm against them. Even those who might want to argue for a kind of plain "universal" moral law inherent in all people must then answer: 1) upon what basis is this accepted, outside of plain majority (argumentum ad populum); 2) to where is this sense of morality sourced, if not to divine commission nor to moral instincts rooted by a great designer?

The fallen man, therefore, lives in a strange kind of state: he is half true man, half animal. We know the moral law subconsciously, and yet we are enslaved to sin and behave like animals. The apostle Paul writes to believers that, before we were quickened by God, we "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 2:3). We were like the heretics and false teachers described in Jude's epistle, living as unreasoning animals. There's a difference between animals and humans here, however: we are guilty of our sins before God because we know better and should know better. A shark that eats another fish because he's hungry isn't going to be judged before God for doing that; a man who kills another man out of malice will stand before God as a murderer, and will be judged for every other sin he has committed.

In a sense, there is innocence in animals. In another sense, humans are also animals. Humans by their nature move towards animalistic tendencies which leads them to sin. They are, however, able, by the grace of God, to be regenerated and move further and further away from their animalistic tendencies so that they can, again by the grace of God, be glorified in the truest sense of "felidae." God bless.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Total Depravity

Durr hurr, my title is so clever. Any way...

I was asked by a sister in Christ to explain the five points of Calvinism, known today by the acronym TULIP. This will by no means be an in depth discussion of the five points, as plenty of resources like that are available online or in printed format. This is also not meant, in its primary goal, to convince anyone towards Calvinism, although God might use it in such a fashion. This is simply meant as a quick and brief explanation of what Calvinists believe and what the five points really mean, hopefully dispelling any misconceptions along the way. As we're going through TULIP, it might make sense to start with the "T", which stands for Total Depravity.

Total Depravity talks about the moral condition of man, and teaches that, morally speaking, he is a fallen creature. Most Christian churches and schools of thought already teach that man is fallen in some way, but Total Depravity goes to the very heart of the matter...literally. Man is a totally and utterly fallen creature, to the point of being naturally corrupt in regards to spiritual things.

Let's go through a few immediate clarifications about what this means. This does not mean that the only thing man can do is evil and nothing else. This does not mean that non-Christians can’t do “good” things. What this does mean is that an individual, without the regeneration of the heart given by God, is unable, on his own, to come to God in saving faith. This is why many people use the phrase Total Inability rather than Total Depravity. Mankind is completely unable, by his own power, to convert himself towards God.

This brings us to the age old question: Does man have a will? Many people seem to presume that Calvinists don't believe they do, and hence they think Calvinists believe men are like robots that have to be reprogrammed. However, Calvinists fully believe man has a will...the issue is, what is the state of  that? According to the position of Calvinists and other monergists (and some synergists), man's will is enslaved to sin, and if left alone it will always pick sin. This is the essence of total inability. You could hold a brick and say "You have free will, go up or down" and let go, but if left to the power of gravity, the brick will always go down. In like manner, you can say to an unregenerated man "You can have life or death," but if he's still under the power of sin, he will always choose death.

A quote on this matter from someone who was far, far more learned than myself:

Man is a free agent but be cannot originate the love of God in his heart. His will is free in the sense that it is not controlled by any force outside of himself. As the bird with a broken wing is "free" to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able. How can he repent of his sin when he loves it? How can he come to God when he hates Him? This is the inability of the will under which man labors. [Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

But enough about what I can say - from here on, I’m going to let scripture do the talking. I could easily do the shotgun approach, throwing out a lot of verses and declaring victory, but I’m not fond of proof texting unless I’m in a hurry. As I’m trying to put some effort into this, I’m going to bring in some of the stronger sections of scripture that I think demonstrate the point, so that we have some solid grounds for discussion. We’ll start with one of my favorite moments of scripture: the second chapter of the apostle Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

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. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this section by saying to the Ephesian Gentile believers (the “you” in verse 1) that they were dead in the trespasses and sins in which they once walked. These trespasses and sins, however, were not unique to the Ephesians themselves, as Paul says that they were following the course of the world, the “prince of the power of the air” (the devil), and the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience (in other words, those who refuse to believe). Paul then says that “we all once lived” in this mode, the “we” here referring to Paul and his fellow Jewish Christians. All of them, Jews and Gentiles alike, were “children of wrath” - also translated as “objects of wrath” - like the rest of mankind were.

Paul’s point here is clear, and is vital for the following verses (which we’ll get to in a moment). The apostle is belaboring the point that the natural state of mankind is one of being spiritually dead. Before a person is regenerated by God, they are dead in trespasses and sins and are by nature an object of wrath - in other words, they are worthy of judgment, and little else. Just as a man who is naturally dead cannot do anything towards, a spiritually dead man cannot do anything towards salvation.

Now that might sound like grim news, but now we get to the good news. In many ways, Ephesians 2 is like the miniature version of what Paul discusses in the first three chapters of Romans, and it’s here that Paul switches gear and goes from sin and judgment to gospel and grace.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus [Eph 2:4-6]

Paul tells us that God, out of love for us, and while we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. Let me reiterate this: we (the believer) were still dead when God quickened us. This blows the idea of Pelagianism and to a large degree Semi-Pelagianism out of the water. When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, there was nothing Lazarus contributed to that act. In a similar matter, Paul says that we, who are dead and objects of wrath, are made alive together with Christ by God, with no assistance from us. God is the main actor here, not man. Paul even belabors this point by writing that it is by grace we have been saved. He will reiterate this two verses later with: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”

So how is this related to the topic of Total Depravity? Paul is quite clearly teaching here that mankind is completely depraved - the natural state of man the world over is one of a dead being. We are objects of wrath because of our inclination to sin. If God left every man alone, no one would be deserving of eternal life. They would still be following the course of this world, and it won't be until the quickening power of God comes upon them that they can change direction.

I should quickly note here (least anyone accuse me of misrepresentation) that Calvinism is not the only theological system which teaches Total Depravity. Most monergists (such as Lutherans) believe in Total Depravity, and most orthodox synergists do as well. John Wesley and George Whitefield - two famous street preachers who were Arminian and Calvinist respectively - would see eye-to-eye with one another on this. Where the different parties would start to differ is what they believe in regards to the other letters in TULIP, which we will, God willing, continue to tiptoe through as these posts progress.

Total Depravity...or Local Depravity?

An argument I've heard twice given is centered around the belief that the scriptures do not teach total depravity, also known as total inability. The argument goes something like this: when Paul talks about the sinfulness of man in Romans and Ephesians, he is actually talking about the sinfulness of those societies. That is, he is talking about the sinfulness of Rome and the sinfulness of Ephesus. Paul is therefore not arguing that all of mankind is sinful or inclined towards wickedness, but that those specific societies were inclined towards wickedness.

Is this the case? Let's take a moment to examine Paul's discussion of sin in both Romans and Ephesians, starting with the epistle to the Romans.

One of the most extensive discussions of human depravity is found in Romans 1:18-32. However, right afterwards, we find the apostle Paul writing this:

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [Romans 2:1]

Previously, Paul had been dealing with the pagan mindset of the general world. Now he turns it on the Jews. The Jews condemned Gentile society for all of those things mentioned in Romans 1, and yet, as Paul says, they were guilty of the same thing. The Jews believed that they were considered righteous by their possession of the Law, and yet, as Paul points out here and throughout most of his epistles, no one is justified by the Law or works of the Law. In fact, Paul contends that judgment from God will be carried out regardless of whether or not they follow the Law or have good works of which to boast.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [Romans 2:12]

God's judgment, therefore, is complete. There is no excuse for those under the Law just as there is no excuse for those outside the Law.

Many inclusivists argue of a "third way", where a person is proclaimed innocent by God out of ignorance of the gospel, but this presupposes it is simply a lack of faith that sends one to hell rather than one's sins. It also forgets that nowhere in scripture does it speak of a third way where someone is not sent to hell simply because they never heard the gospel. There are those who are Christ or against Him (Matt 12:30) - there is no neutral ground, and lukewarm theology is an abomination to God (Rev 3:16).

In any case, Paul continues his criticism of Jewish believers who uphold their righteousness by their Jewish identity, pointing out that, as they are unable to follow the Law, they in fact bring disservice to God through their disobedience.

You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." [Romans 2:23-24]

This brings us to the climactic moment of the book of Romans:

What then? Are we Jews any 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." [Romans 3:9-12]

Paul now brings the previous two and a half chapters to a hilt: everyone is sinful. Jew, Gentile - everyone. "All, both Jews and Greeks" is what Paul writes. This is not a matter of "local depravity." Paul is clearly arguing here that all of mankind is fallen. The beginning of chapter three is summarizing everything that was discussed throughout chapters one and two - and the summary is that we are all sinners in need of a savior.

Now let's turn to Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, specifically the beginning of chapter two.

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. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this epistle by directly addressing the Ephesian readers, stating: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (v. 1). It is true that he is specifically speaking to the Ephesian Gentile Christians here (we'll see that as this discussion progresses), but look at what the apostle says in the next verse: "following the course of this world" (v. 2). He calls unbelievers the "sons of disobedience", then says in verse 3: "among whom we all once lived." Who is the "we all"? It's the Jewish believers - Paul included. If one reads the first chapter of Ephesians, we see that Paul is expanding on the extension of salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (especially Eph 1:11-13; compare to Eph 2:11-13). In many ways, Ephesians 2:1-3 is simply a longer version of Romans 3:9. However, the clincher in our discussion comes at the end of verse 3: "[we] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Paul says the "rest of mankind" are "children of wrath" (also translated "objects of wrath"), showing that everything he has discussed in these three verses is a statement of the spiritual condition of all of mankind.

In fact, Paul's point here is so obvious that I must be perfectly blunt: anyone who argues Paul is here teaching about a "local depravity" rather than what we might call "universal depravity" is either arguing from a second-hand source or purposefully ignoring parts of scripture. If you are guilty of the former, I encourage you to study God's word more; if you are guilty of the latter, I ask you humbly to repent of mishandling God's word.

Meditations on Human Depravity

As the riots occurred across various cities in the United Kingdom, I watched some conversation going on in various internet circles regarding the real issue behind this. Was it simply crime, or was there something deeper? Were there social issues under the surface which, having been left untreated, resulted in these riots? Is it therefore possible to stop such riots by resolving civil issues? Is the issue of human depravity ultimately one of social condition?

The mentality of many people seems to be that man is inherently good, and therefore any crime that is committed can be resolved through rectifying a social problem - ie., if you give a person a chance to have a real job, they won't resort to crime. The evil that men do is not the result of any innate nature, but circumstances outside their control that affect their overall world view and therefore cause (if not compel) them to commit evil. This of course logically concludes that if one were to raise a child by angels on a desert island and then place into modern society, he would have no capability to commit evil, or at the very least would have the least capacity to commit evil as anyone else in the world.

This Pelagian mindset, of course, only skips across the surface of the water. As much as defenders of this mindset may accuse those who want the London rioters to be arrested as only touching the surface of the problem, they are likewise committing the same error, for they forget the issue goes even deeper than they imagine. To put it another way: whereas those who want the criminals arrested may be cutting off the weed at the top while forgetting the stem, their critics want to cut the weed off at the stem while forgetting the roots.

Those who know me personally know that I have some experience doing graphic design for local news stations, and because of this I've spent much time handling mugshots of individuals accused of various crimes. Two things a person doing this notices: 1) there tend to be patterns in regards to the crimes; 2) all people are capable of committing these crimes to varying degrees. I noticed, for example, that while it was common for minority groups to commit petty robbery or theft, the bigger robberies were committed by Caucasians. Whereas gang-related murder or random murders were committed by minorities, family-related murder and similar crimes were committed by Caucasians. I am, of course, not speaking here of absolutes, and you will find variances across the board. My point, however, is that evil is not limited to one ethnic group nor one social class - middle and high class people are as capable of committing crime as those in the lower classes. Evil, one might say, is an equal opportunity employer. It does not matter what race or social class you are, you will be found out by evil and evil will use you in whatever way possible. It will adapt and exist as it needs to. A black thug mugging someone to steal their wallet is committing evil just as a white CEO who commits fraud is likewise committing evil. That one was in a better social position than the other is irrelevant to the problem - both were acting upon the innate evil tendencies inside them.

If people still contend that evil committed in incidents such as this are to be sourced solely to social or civil issues, then why, in those same communities, does good exist? In the original novel of A Clockwork Orange, Alex briefly ponders to himself why so many people speculate on the sources of evil (video games, movies, social conditions, etc.), yet they never speculate on the sources of good. How many people who grew up in ghettos and low income neighborhoods rife with crime ended up being perfectly normal, functioning members of society? For every teen and young adult who went out and committed crimes in London and various other English cities, how many more stayed at home and continued being law-abiding citizens? Why were they "good" when they were in perfect soil to be "bad"? Or to take it another direction: why do people who grow up in situations where they should be "good" end up being "bad"? Ted Bundy, for all intents and purposes, should have been a moral person, not a serial killer, but let's not ask "What made him evil?", let's instead ask "What made those in worst situations than him good?"

God, of course, has given clear teachings regarding these problems: all men are under sin (Rom 3:9), the intent of every man's heart is to do evil (Gen 6:5), no one continually does good and does not sin (Ecc 7:29), men naturally love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), and men are born children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Man, by his nature, is a depraved, fallen creature. If he cites his social condition as reason for his actions, he is simply attempting to justify his evil nature before society. Likewise, no amount of money thrown at the problem is going to solve what lies under the surface: the depraved heart of a fallen creature.

Many jump to extremes when they hear this teaching. They assume that when we say mankind is depraved, we say all men are Charles Manson, and no one exists who does anything "nice" or "good." That, however, is not the case with total depravity. Even the most "evil" person on earth is capable of performing "good" deeds. The fact of human depravity does not say that we are all as evil as Charles Mansion - only that we are all as guilty as Charles Manson. We are all guilty of sin, and no one can say to themselves that they will get be judged righteous before God. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

So what do we do with this? Do we become like cynics and throw our hands in the hair and decide that nothing good can come of man? On the contrary. We must cry out with a loud voice, as did the apostle Paul: "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24) Then, when we come to the face of the Lord, upon whom is the righteousness we need to be just before God, we can safely say, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our lord!" (Rom 7:25) God bless.