This essay is free for distribution in any manner, with the
provision that it remains completely intact, with this notice,
the author's name and the full text of the essay.  Any
comments are gratefully welcomed.  Copyright 1997.


INTRODUCTION

Sin is never merely a voluntary act of 
transgression against God and His righteous requirements.  
Every such act proceeds from an inner essence that is 
more firmly entrenched in mankind than the volition 
itself.  The Biblical testimony is that a sinful act is 
the expression of a sinful heart.  David exclaimed that 
he had been a sinner since birth, sinful since the time 
of his very conception (Psalm 51:5).  The apostle Paul 
speaks graphically about how sin within him "sprang to 
life" (Romans 7:9) and went about "seizing the 
opportunity" (Romans 7:9).  Genesis 8:21 demonstrates 
that mankind is subject to a persistent tendency to evil 
inclinations.

Milne (1980, p. 1458) explains that sin must always 
include the perversity of heart, mind, disposition and 
will.  Wright (1968, p. 76) notes that man has lost the 
power to become, and habitually to remain, righteous.  
The term used to explain this by medieval theologians was 
‘deprivation’, from which ‘depravity’ is obtained.

PRECISE DEFINITION OF DEPRAVITY

Wright (1968, p. 15) laments a perceived lack of 
careful employment of terminology.  To illustrate his 
point he refers to contexts in which one may understand 
“total depravity” to mean that “man has lost all 
semblance of good in any form, and that each individual 
sinner is as corrupt as he possibly could be”.  He 
continues, later writing that

[total depravity] was never intended to convey the 
meaning that man is as bad as he possibly can be, and 
that every trace of moral rectitude has been lost in 
fallen man (Wright, 1968, p. 77).

Badham (nd., p. 36) adds

It does not mean that the unregenerate are totally 
insensitive in the matters of conscience, of right or 
wrong.  In Romans 2:15 Paul says that Gentiles have 
the law written on their hearts, so that “their 
conscience also bears witness . . .”

To counteract such misconceptions, Wright proceeds 
to define “total depravity” as meaning that sin has 
influenced every part of human nature, so that there is 
no part of it that may invariably perform righteous acts 
or think righteous thoughts.  That is, the “totality” 
applies to the field of operation, and not to the actual 
degree of evil in the individual.  Further, such 
depravity is total because apart from divine aid it is 
irreversible.

THE EXTENT OF DEPRAVITY

As depravity is total, affecting every aspect and 
area of man’s being, then man is unable to habitually 
perform that which is good and well pleasing to God.  
All, like sheep, have gone astray and turned to their own 
way.  There is no-one righteous. (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 
3:10-12).  The apostle Paul detailed the conflict he 
found inside himself in Romans 7:7-25.  Although he 
wanted to do good, evil was always there.  He was a 
prisoner of the law of sin that worked within his body 
(v. 23).  His sinful nature made him a very slave of sin 
(v. 25) – his depravity was total.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN

God is utterly separate from sin (Job 34:10; Romans 
3:23) and requires holiness of His people – (Leviticus 
11:44, 45; I Peter 1:16) - and in fact, without holiness 
no-one shall see God (Hebrews 12:14).

The word of the Lord came to the prophet Ezekiel, 
“The soul who sins is the one who will die” (Ezekiel 
18:4).  Romans 3:23 explains that all have sinned.  
Consequently, all have fallen short of the glory of God.  
Romans 5:12 adds that death has came to all mankind – 
because all have sinned.

Further, God will judge every man according to 
their deeds, and in an unregenerate and unrepentant state 
one is merely storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 
2:5-6).  This wrath is a threefold death.  Firstly, 
physical death separates the soul and the body (Genesis 
2:17; 3:19; Numbers 16:29).  Secondly, spiritual death 
separates the soul from God while the body is alive 
(Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:21; Ephesians 2:1, 5)  The 
natural man is outside of communion with the living God.  
He is unable to act and respond spiritually.  He is not 
able to discern God’s ways or serve Him.  Thirdly, 
eternal death separates man from God completely and 
forever, and is what man deserves (Matthew 25:46; 
Revelation 20:11-15).  If one comes to physical death, 
while still in a state of spiritual death, then only 
eternal death can result.

FREE WILL

It is important to consider the notion of free 
will, for a possible objection to the doctrine of total 
depravity is that it conflicts with man’s freedom, 
especially in light of the Biblical teaching that anyone 
who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34).  Ryrie (1960, p. 
164), for example, implies that total depravity (emphasis 
his) involves a loss of free will.

Such an objection, however, places an emphasis on 
man’s limitations, neglecting to realise that all created 
beings are necessarily limited.  Wright (1968, p. 78) 
illustrates that angels act ‘freely’, but under a 
constant law of righteousness - if they had not been 
‘free’, none could have fallen.  Nevertheless, the 
emphasis of Scripture is that man does have a freedom, 
and this that they may choose Christ.  Further, it is 
inconsistent to define total depravity as not affecting 
the whole of any part of man – but simultaneously 
affecting the whole of the will (thus it is lost).  
Rather, the will has been affected by depravity, but it 
is still present like any other aspect of man.

Wright (1968, p. 78) states that “free will” is a 
term that is often hastily generalised.  It is a complex 
issue because the question must be asked whether moral 
choice is secured in a finite being without granting the 
possibility of a wrong moral choice, that is, is it 
actually possible to isolate an act from its historical 
setting and make it voluntary in the sense of being 
unrelated to a previous moral condition?  When discussing 
“free will”, it is important to realise that such entails 
the free expression of an individual at any moment, but 
that the individual’s nature and history are real and 
pervasive influences in their choice.

Free will does not contradict depravity in any way.  
However, man’s choices will be influenced by such 
depravity.

There is a more serious way in which this objection 
may be considered, however.  Extreme Calvinist writer W. 
E. Best (1992, p. 11) states, “Those who embrace the 
theory of man’s free will deny depravity. . .”  Such a 
statement is fallacious, for it may be proven untrue by 
the existence of but one person who embraces both man’s 
free will and depravity, such as Wright, or Stern (1992).  
The real issue is whether it is valid for one to 
simultaneously adhere to these notions – which is the 
case, as explained above.

Best, however, makes a distinction between “free 
agency” and “free will” (Best, 1992, p. 11).  To him, 
free will transcends an agent’s ability to act according 
to their depraved will, and especially assumes an ability 
in the will of man itself to choose good or evil.  This 
is contradictory to Best’s view of God’s sovereignty, 
which is further interrelated with central tenets of 
Calvinism such as irresistible grace and a limited 
atonement.

Among Protestants the differences in understanding 
of the process from a sinful state to full salvation lies 
primarily in the Reformed and Wesleyan approaches.  The 
view one takes will be related to their doctrine of 
depravity.  Calvinists, such as Best, assert that 
depravity implies a total inability that necessitates a 
regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in order to repent 
and believe.  Pecota (1994, p. 355) sees this suggesting 
a process beginning with election, predestination and 
then foreknowledge, which contrasts the list Paul 
specifies in Romans 8:28-30.  Further, regeneration must 
of necessity occur before repentance.  Pecota instead 
sees depravity as implying that, because man continues to 
bear the image of God even in a fallen state, one is able 
to respond to God’s drawing in repentance and faith – 
giving an order of foreknowledge, election and then 
predestination.

The former position is not consistent with 
Scripture and demonstrates a flawed view of sovereignty.  
God is a gracious, loving and personal sovereign who 
experiences no threat to, or diminishing of, His 
sovereignty if one refuses His gift.

According to Scripture, man is capable of resisting 
God’s grace.  Through Isaiah, God said “All day long I 
have held out my hands to an obstinate people. . . I 
called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not 
listen” (Isaiah 65:2, 12).  Stephen accused his hearers 
of being “stiff-necked people. . . [who] always resist 
the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51).  Pecota (1994, p. 360) adds

. . . if we cannot resist God’s grace, then 
nonbelievers will perish, not because they would not 
respond but because they could not.  God’s grace would 
not be efficacious for them.

Pecota (1994, p. 360-1) continues,

A God whose love yearns for everyone to come to Him 
but does not irresistibly compel them to come, and 
whose heart breaks over their refusal, has to be a God 
of greatness beyond our imagining.

Indeed, there is only one appropriate response to 
such great love and that is to repent and believe.  
Thiessen (1979, p. 192) correctly states that man “cannot 
of his free will regenerate himself, repent, nor exercise 
saving faith” – but neither are these actions produced 
within man apart from one’s willingness.

The responsible Christian must avoid extreme 
expressions of both synergism and monergism.  Monergism 
derives from Augustinianism and affirms that to be saved 
a person cannot and does not do anything whatever to 
bring it about.  Extreme forms of synergism date to 
Pelagius who denied depravity, but the moderate 
evangelical expression is based on Arminius and, more 
importantly and recently, Wesley.  Both emphasised an 
ability to freely choose, even in matters that affect 
one’s eternal destiny.  Man is depraved – but the 
totality refers to its field of operation and not its 
extent, thus one is not unable to respond (either 
positively or negatively) to God’s grace.  An evangelical 
synergist affirms that God alone saves, but they believe 
that Biblical universal exhortations to repent and 
believe make sense only if in fact man is able to accept 
or reject salvation (Pecota, 1994, p. 361).

Salvation stems entirely from God’s grace, but to 
state that that is so does not require one to diminish 
their responsibility when confronted with the gospel 
message.

CONCLUSION

In the unregenerate state, man is separate from 
Christ.  Sin has effected all of man’s person.  He is 
without hope and without God (Ephesians 2:12).

As human beings have sinned, they are responsible 
for their sins, and are guilty before God.  All have done 
wrong, by their own fault, and are therefore liable to 
bear the just penalty of such wrongdoing.  This is the 
argument of the early chapters of Romans – Paul divides 
the human race into three major sections.  He shows how 
each know something of their moral duty, but have 
deliberately suppressed its knowledge in order to pursue 
their own sinful course (Stott, 1989, p. 96).  As John 
wrote, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the 
world, but men loved darkness instead of light because 
their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

Man must be saved, and this by the name of Jesus 
(Acts 4:12), through repentance and faith in God.  Saving 
faith is principally divine in origin.  Jesus said that 
no-one could come to Christ unless the Father draws them 
(John 6:44) but one must count the cost of following 
Christ (Matthew 8:19-22; Luke 14:26-33), believe on Jesus 
(Acts 16:31) and confess Him as Lord (Romans 10:9).


WORKS CITED

Badham, D. nd. Man and Sin, Rhema Bible College, 
Townsville.

________. nd. Soteriology, Rhema Bible College, 
Townsville.

Best, W. E. 1992. Honoring the True God, W. E. Best Book 
Missionary Trust, Houston, Texas.

Bruce, F. F. 1972. The Message of the New Testament, The 
Paternoster Press, Carlisle, U.K.

Milne, B. A. 1980. ‘Sin’, in The Illustrated Bible 
Dictionary, ed. F. F. Bruce, Inter-Varsity Press.

Morris, L. 1994. The Cross of Jesus, The Paternoster 
Press, Carlisle, U.K.

Pecota, D. 1994. ‘The Saving Work of Christ’, in 
Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed. 
S. M. Horton, Logion Press, Springfield, Missouri.

Ryrie, C. C. 1960. `Depravity’, in Baker’s Dictionary of 
Theology, ed. E. F. Harrison, Baker Book House, 
Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Stern, D. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary, Jewish 
New Testament Publications, Maryland.

Stott, J. R. W. 1989. The Cross of Christ, 2d. ed., 
Inter-Varsity Press.

Thiessen, H. C. 1979. Lectures in Systematic Theology, 
rev. ed., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand 
Rapids, Michigan.

Wright, D. F. 1968. In Understanding be Men, 6th. ed, 
Inter-Varsity Press.

davidmwilliams@oocities.com