Why Does Total Depravity Make a Difference?

My theology class recently read an “Introduction to Christian Theology” by Bradley Hanson, a Lutheran minister. While I found it an interesting read, I disagreed with Hanson vehemently on several issues, most prominently the nature of man. I know I often return to the nature of man in my theological blog posts, and I am sure this becomes tedious for the reader. However, I find this point crucial in understanding Christianity as laid out in the Bible. If man is not inherently sinful, man can save himself. And isn’t that what every religion except Christianity suggests in the first place? For example, in my ongoing debates with Muslim friends, we recently had this discussion.

Friend: “Our religions aren’t very different. It all comes down to being a good person, and both Islam and Christianity require that.”
Me: “No, there is one crucial difference. Islam suggests that you as a human being must choose to follow Allah and be a good person within your own autonomy. The Bible, however, does not propose it is even possible for us as human beings to be good people. Of our own volition through Adam and Eve, we are completely sinful from birth. Our very nature is sinful, and we cannot do anything about it on our own. That’s why we need a Savior, Jesus.”
Friend: “But doesn’t the Bible say you should do good deeds and be a good person?”
Me: “The point is that we cannot be a good person on our own, without the saving work of Jesus. Yes, our purpose is to glorify God, but it is God who works in us to make this possible (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 1). “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand” (Eph. 2:10). Our good works are a result of the work of God within us, not our own flawed human capabilities.”

OK, I know you are wondering what this conversation has to do with Hanson’s theology book. When Hanson discusses whether human beings are inherently good or evil, he says, “It is impossible for sound Christian theology to choose only one of these alternatives over the other” (Hanson 117) . After reflecting on this statement, I believe it is impossible for sound Christian theology not to affirm the total depravity of man. The Bible says, “There is none righteous, not even one…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:10, 23). This quote does not even question the depravity of man but states it in a decided manner. In the words of the Westminster Catechism, “The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him” (Q. 22).

Furthermore, I am convinced that if mankind was not inherently sinful, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross would be severely demeaned if not pointless. Actually, this is considered in Galatians which says, “If righteousness comes through the Law [our own goodness], then Christ died needlessly” (Gal. 2:21). As Paul points out, “For as through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Clearly, the Bible indicates that man is fallen, desperately in need of a Savior, and Hanson’s refusal to affirm this is highly offensive and contrary to scripture.

Besides, the nature of God suggests the total depravity of man. If humans are not inherently sinful, how can God hold us accountable for sin? If we claim that society causes us to be sinful, then the sin is not our fault. Would a completely Just God punish us for sin which we are not responsible? Herein is the confusion, for the Bible states that, “the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 5:6). The only way that this wrath and punishment could be within the nature of a perfectly just God is if humans are inherently sinful.

The Heidelberg Catechism states this issue well when it asks, “Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?” (Q. 8). The reply claims, “Indeed we are; except [when] we are regenerated by the Spirit of God” (A. 8). Therein lays the beauty of the Gospel, the fact that we are completely helpless and “inclined to all wickedness” yet we are “regenerated by the Spirit of God.”

I love to dwell on and think about the first question and answer in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q) What is thy only comfort in life and death?
A) That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

Hanson, Bradley. “Introduction to Christian Theology”. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Holy Bible: New American Standard Version. World Publishing Inc., 1995.
Westminster Larger Catechism. 1647
Heidelberg Catechism

Reflections of a Depraved Mind

WARNING: This is a serious blog post. Yes, this is one of those either truly inspired or truly delusional posts in which one rants on and on and on and on . . .

Before I begin, a quick note on the title. By depraved I mean the Calvinist assertion of the human state in Total Depravity. By mind, I suggest something more sinister (not really). However, this title is ironic because many Catholics--accepting tradition comming down from St. Augustine--claim that the "human will" is totally deprived, but the "human mind" is not. Thus, this title is both fitting to this post and expository in a certain way of my Reformed theology. With that in mind, let us continue.

I have grown up in a conservative, Reformed Presbyterian home as well as a fairly conservative community not too far off the “Bible Belt.” Thus, my theological introduction in the realm of Christianity has been narrow. Please do not misunderstand me, I was introduced to a variety of different worldviews, but they could all be easily “othered”—i.e. Islam, Hinduism. It was clear why I did not agree with these worldviews. Yet the width of my perception within Christian theology was about as wide as the differences between Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian theology. In my mind, Christian theology meant biblically sound theology.

Upon entering Georgetown a few months ago, I was introduced to a deluge of new theological ideas. For example, it had never occurred to me that someone claiming to be a Christian would suggest that “Jesus is not necessarily the only way to salvation.” Or “I may be partly dependant on Christ for salvation, but I should go to heaven because I’m a good person.” Do not laugh at my naïve childishness. I simply had not been introduced to such shocking assertions, which are blatantly unbiblical (Rom. 3:28, Eph. 2:8, Gal. 2:16, 2:21). Yet amidst the liberal, Catholic theology at Georgetown, claims like this are abundant. Listening to these misrepresentations of the Christian faith often makes me want to scream at these people, “YOU’RE A SINNER! YOU CANNOT SAVE YOURSELF!” However, that is undeniably not the most effective course, so I usually resort to discussion and questioning.

The largest problem that misrepresentations like these present is that they are often either deceptively close to the truth or close to what we, as humans, want to be the truth. I mean come on, people; it is undeniably part of our completely depraved human nature to desire self-salvation. We want to think that we are good enough to merit salvation, yet as Paul says, “You who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” (Gal. 4:21). In wanting what we simply cannot attain for ourselves, we are forgoing what we do not need to attain for ourselves, the grace of God. How ironic.

I recently had a very interesting discussion with a good friend at school, who is a Hindu. She asked, “Do you think I’m going to hell because I’m not a Christian?” In all honesty, I had to reply, “Yes.” (Don’t worry. She wasn’t offended. That is perhaps one of the greatest assets to this University. People say all sorts of “offending” things about one’s religion, culture, politics, and values, but these things are not taken offensively.) She then asked, “Why would you think I would go to hell? Do you think I’m not a good person?” Of course, this led to an explanation of how I don’t think anyone is a “good person” because human nature is inherently sinful, so her lack of salvation is not a result of anything she has done or failed to do (as in good works) since we as humans cannot save ourselves but are completely dependent upon Christ’s work on the cross as a substitution (gotta love the good old Calvinist term thrown in there…) for our sins.

This was all very foreign to her as well as my Muslim friends. When one has grown up in a Christian family and community, it is difficult to understand the confusion people from these cultures face when confronting Christianity. For example, before our Theology midterm last week, I found myself explaining the concept of grace to my Muslim friends, who couldn’t figure out what it meant in a Christian context. Encounters like this pervade our discussions.

In the words of C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

This has been a very serious blog post, indeed. I apologize if I’ve bored you to death—meaning you’ve deleted your subscription to my blog . . .—however, one can hardly begrudge me one serious post amongst the frivolous attributes of my general posting.