Video Transcript: Total Depravity (Part 2)

When we get to the concern of the doctrine of total depravity, or the T in tulip  invariably, we are catapulted into the arena of the debate over free will. In fact,  the historic controversy over the degree of original sin that infects us really  focuses on that question of free will. You can't have a five minute conversation  on the doctrines of grace or on the doctrine of election without somebody raising the question, What about free will? And so often, the debate or the discussion  over free will is placed in two different frameworks. On the one hand, the  question of human freedom is struggled with vis a vis the relationship between  God's sovereignty and our responsibility and our power to act as volitional  creatures. But the other place in which the discussion of free will is framed has  to do with the question of the relationship between the fall and original sin and  the power of human freedom. Let me take a moment to read a confessional  summary of this dispute, as we find it in the Westminster Confession of Faith,  which is the 17th century British statement of reformation theology, where we  read these words quote man by his fall into a state of sin. Hath holy that's W, H,  O, L, L Y, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying  salvation, so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare himself  there unto. Now what this confession is saying points to the radical character of  this doctrine, in that it affirms that man's freedom in a certain area has been  wholly or completely lost by the full by the fall, not that man has completely lost  his power of choosing or of making decisions, but his moral power to do certain  things has been completely lost. And that certain thing that is in view here is that man has lost the ability to convert himself or to will on his own steam, any  spiritual good. Now therein is the crux of the matter of the doctrine of total  depravity. It translates into the doctrine of what is called Moral inability. I want to  take a little time to explain this concept, and again, we can go back to  Augustine's view of the inherited corruption. Pelagius disagreed with this. And  Pelagius said that Adam's fall affected only Adam, that there is no consequence  to future generations and the seed of Adam sin only by imitation, not because of  some transferred or transmitted fallen human condition. Now, after Pelagius was condemned by the church, a moderate position emerged that was called semi  Pelagian, semi Pelagianism, which taught, yes, there was a fall, that man, the  whole human race, mankind, has been affected by Adam's sin, and that we all  are born with a corrupt nature. But that corrupt. Nature leaves what I'm going to  call a kind of island of righteousness, by which there still remains a vestigial  remnant of the original righteousness, that though this person needs the help of  divine grace in order to be saved in order to be made holy. Nevertheless, there  remains a power within the will of the creature that can cooperate with the grace of God, or reject the grace of God, so that, in the final analysis, the reason why  some persons will come to Christ and others will not, some will be redeemed  and some will be lost, will be rooted ultimately in human decision and in that 

power that remains in the will after the fall. Now again, Pelagius said that a  person can live a perfect life without grace. And he said that grace facilitates  redemption, but it's not necessary. People can be perfect. And in fact, Pelagius  argued, some have achieved perfection without any assistance from God. The  semi pelagians differ with Pelagius at this point by saying, no grace is absolutely necessary. It's a precondition for anyone's being redeemed, you can't be saved  without grace. However, grace is not alone. It is grace plus something else,  grace plus the exertions of the human will in the strength that remains intact  after the fall. Augustine was one of the principal architects of the idea that was  recovered in the 16th century reformation in one of the SOLAS of that time, the  so called idea of sola gratia by grace alone. Augustine was saying that the fall is  so profound and that the power of sin is so strong in the human heart that only  God, by His grace and by His grace alone, can change the disposition of the  human soul to bring that person to faith. So at issue here is whether fallen man  has the ability intact, the moral power intact, to incline himself, or to embrace, in  his own strength, the offers of help and assistance that come to us from God. Or is it necessary for God to do the initial work of re creation in the soul before the  fallen person has the moral power to say yes to the gospel. So what we're  talking about here is what is called the divine initiative, Augustine. Would say  this, that before a person comes to Christ, God works unilaterally,  monergistically, independently and sovereignly by changing the soul of the  sinner by rescuing that sinner from the prison house of moral bondage by which  he is, by nature, dead in sin and trespasses, and in that state of spiritual death,  is morally unable to resurrect himself. That God has to come and breathe new  spiritual life and power into the soul of that person, and as to use Paul's  language to quicken him from a state of spiritual death and produce faith in the  person's heart before that person has the power to come to Christ. Now, those  people do come to Christ, and they choose Christ. They come willingly and  cheerfully and all the rest, but not before, or until God does His work of  sovereign grace in bringing that. Person from spiritual death to spiritual life. We  call that monergistic rebirth, or monergistic regeneration, that it is the work of  God alone. And since there is nothing I can do to earn it, to deserve it, to merit it  or to provoke it, I must rest my case ultimately on the grace of God and on the  grace of God alone. Now one of the important biblical texts that speaks to this is  found in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus makes a somewhat astonishing  statement. He says in verse 63 it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits  nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are  some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they  were who did not believe and who would betray him. And he said, therefore, I  have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been given to him by  my father. Now we remember earlier in Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus,  who came in at night, Jesus talked about the necessity of a person's being 

reborn before they could even see the kingdom of God, not to mention enter the  kingdom of God. And in that discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus said to him, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  And just as Jesus makes this strong contrast between flesh and spirit, so the  Apostle Paul does the same thing when he talks in the metaphor of warfare that  goes on between the flesh and the spirit in the person who has been converted,  even when you are born of the Spirit, the flesh is not completely annihilated, and there is this ongoing struggle, but until the Holy Spirit changes your life, all you  are is flesh. This is what Jesus is saying to Nicodemus, in your natural birth, in  your natural state, you were born in the state of sarx or the biblical concept of  flesh, in this fallen condition where the desires of your heart are only wicked  continuously, in which the Apostle says that you walk according to the course of  this world, according To the prince of the power of the air, and that you are dead  in your sin. That's the condition of the flesh. Now here in John 6, Jesus says,  The flesh profits. What nothing in his debate with Desiderius, Erasmus of  Rotterdam Luther, in his perhaps most famous work on the bondage of the will,  labored his exposition of this biblical text and kept jibing at Erasmus for having  the flesh do something in the process of salvation, not only that is significant, but it is pivotal. And not only does it profit something, but it profits everything.  Because if in the final analysis, we rest upon this innate moral power within us  that is not touched or incarcerated by the fall, and that the power here of the  flesh is to incline oneself to spiritual good, and one exercises the proper  inclination, what that profits him is eternal life. And Luther never tiring of  debating with Erasmus says that that nothing is not a little something. And he  said, Jesus is serious. When he says, the flesh promise or profits, nothing, then  he goes on to make this statement, No man can come to me unless it is given to him by the Father. Now that text is very important, because it begins with the  statement, no man and if you are students of the grammar stage of logic, you  will recognize that statement or that concept no man as what is called a  universal negative proposition. It describes something negative of everybody in  the class man. Now I would like to be able to say that this is used in a gender  specific way, and only refers to the inherent moral inability of males.  Unfortunately, the usage here in the Greek is that it is shorthand for mankind.  What Jesus is saying is that no human person. He's saying something about  everybody, something negative about everybody. Now again, the next word is  crucial. No man can not no man may we know the difference about between  May and can? I've talked about that many times. I remember when I was in  grade school, and I asked the teacher, can I go sharpen my pencil? And she  said, I'm sure that you can. But you mean, may I go sharpen my pencil? And I  have since discovered that that teacher got around. In fact, she was ubiquitous,  and that everybody I've ever met had the same teacher at some time in their in  their lives, haven't you that teacher said, I'm sure you can. The question is, may 

I we're not talking here about permission, but the word can describes ability or  power. Poe said, and what Jesus is saying here is that no human being has the  power or the ability to do something. Now, these are strong words coming from  the lips of our Lord. This isn't Augustine or Calvin or Luther. This is Christ himself saying something about man's ability. And he says, No man is able. No man has the power to do what, to come to me, so that there is an inherent lack of ability  of some kind for human beings to come to Jesus in some way. Now, obviously,  when he says, Come to me, he's not talking spatially or geographically.  Obviously, none of us have the ability to come to Him in His earthly presence in  Palestine, because he's not there anymore. And he wasn't saying that no man  could come and find out where he was living. The coming to me is the way in  which he calls people to embrace Him in faith for their salvation. I don't think  there's any biblical scholar that would dispute that that's what Jesus is talking  about here, with respect to coming to him, No man can come to Him unless,  unless, unless indicates a necessary condition that has to be met before a  desired consequence can possibly follow. So that unless points to some sine  qua non, some absolutely essential thing that has to take place before a person  can come to Jesus. What is it? Well, here he simply says, No one can come to  me unless it is given to him by the Father. Earlier in the text, he talks about, no  one can come to Me unless the Father woos him or lures him. Although the  word that is used there is the word that most dictionaries translates by the  English word compel, it's not just an external enticement, like trying to lure  people to come to Him. The idea here is that something, God has to do  something at this point, God has to enable a person to come that's the key point  that we, according to the doctrine of total depravity, have lost our natural human  ability to come to Jesus, we still make choices, but we make our choices  according to our desires. That's the essence of freedom, to be able to choose  according to your own desires or inclinations but it's a double edged sword. Not  only are we free in the sense that we choose according to our desires, but we  cannot not be free at that point. We not only may choose what we want, but the  only kind of a choice that is a real choice is the choice that is made according to  what you want, and so we are all still free people in the sense that we can do  what we want. But that's not the royal liberty of which the New Testament  speaks. It doesn't address the problem of moral bondage and what Original Sin  teaches and the doctrine of moral inability, found under the rubric of total  depravity, means that we are slaves to our own desires, and by nature, we have  no desire for Christ or for the things of God, and so we freely reject Him, insofar  as we choose what we want and what we don't want, is him, unless God  changes the desire of the heart. You see, that's why it's not called natural  inability, or it's called Moral inability. We don't have the power or the ability to  love the good. For that to happen, we have to be changed. God has to  intervene, and in His grace, he must rescue us from spiritual death, and the 

other metaphor spiritual bondage, he has to give us the gift of faith by creating a spiritual resurrection in the heart and in the soul. And so that's the first point of  the acrostic of total depravity. It refers to the degree of corruption that is so  severe that there is no Island free from the bondage of corruption found within  the deep recesses of the human soul. But until we are born of the Spirit, we are  flesh, and the only way we can ever come to faith is that if God, in His grace and His grace alone, liberates us by causing us to be born a second Time by the  creative power of the Holy Ghost.